United States v. Pendleton’s Empirical Analysis
636 F.3d 78 · 2011
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2250 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 16911 · 42 U.S.C. § 16913
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Caminetti v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · United States v. Williams · Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o the extent that § 16913 regulates solely intrastate activity, its means are reasonably adapted to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Pendleton, 636 F.3d 78 , 88 (3d Cir.2011) (holding that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.