United States v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 522 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2003
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1261 (Child Protection Act of 1966) · 15 U.S.C. § 2051 (Consumer Product Safety Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2031 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on United States v. Bailey · Barrett v. United States · Williams v. United States · United States v. Dennis Quiver · Mayfield
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or from any institution or facility in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner, or from . the custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall [be guilty of an offense against the United States].” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a facility in which he was confined by direction of the Attorney General of the United States.” The indictment did not allege that he was in the custody of the Attorney General or her authorized representative, that any court order or other judicial process directed that he be detained, or that he was in custody contemporaneous to a lawful arrest. 7 . Unlike the deportation of a previously admitted alien, someone seeking admission but deemed excludable has no constitutional right to due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Assimilative Crimes Act states: Whoever within or upon any [federal enclave] is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable ... within the jurisdiction of the State ... in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.