Nited States of America v. Michael Clemente’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably 553 F. Supp. 1347 - Moss v. Morgan Stanley Inc. (1983), 733 F. Supp. 668 - In Re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Securities Litigation (1990)
2 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Bates v. State Bar · Nye & Nissen 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The defendant] contends that the use of fear of economic harm is not inherently wrongful, but rather represents a device routinely used in legitimate business transactions, and claims that merely using fear of economic loss to obtain money does not render the receipt of such money wrongful. Thus, he asserts that the requirement set forth by the Supreme Court in Enmons , that both the “means” and the “objective” be wrongful to constitute extortion ..., was not adequately conveyed to the jury____ We are satisfied that the charge correctly instructed the jury on the wrongfulness element of the crime on extortion. The thrust of the district court’s charge ... was that the use of fear of economic loss to obtain property to which one is not entitled is wrongful. It is obvious that the use of fear of financial injury is not inherently wrongful. And precisely because of this fact, the “objective” of the party employing fear of economic loss will have a bearing on the lawfulness of its use____ [T]he wrongfulness element of the crime would be satisfied upon finding that fear of economic loss was employed by the defendants to obtain money to which they were not lawfully entitled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is obvious that the use of fear of financial injury is not inherently wrongful. And precisely because of this fact, the “objective” of the party employing fear of economic loss will have a bearing on the lawfulness of its use.... Fear of economic loss is not an inherently wrongful means; however, when employed to achieve a wrongful purpose, its “use” is wrongful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Fear of economic loss is not an inherently wrongful means; however, when employed to achieve a wrongful purpose, its ‘use’ is wrongful.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.