Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 647 F.2d 224 - United States v. Barton

United States v. Barton’s Empirical Analysis

647 F.2d 224 · 1981

Citation profile

210
cited by 210 later decisions
5
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

138 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 210 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)

138 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

14301981199020002010decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Whalen 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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We are inclined to believe that the mere fact that a building is insured by an interstate carrier does not meet even the de minimis standard for showing that the activity of the building affected interstate commerce. In light, however, of the fact that these are jurisdictional, rather than substantive, elements of the government’s case and in view of the adequacy of the undisputed evidence as to the alternative jurisdictional predicates, we conclude that any error in giving the insurance portion of the charge was harmless.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Since the term affecting [interstate or foreign] ‘commerce’ represents the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause, NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Corp., 371 U.S. 224 , 226 (1963), [section 8440) ] is a verU broad provision covering substantially all business property.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate of foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. [Emphasis added.] 4”
    2 later decisions 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.