United States v. Schaffer’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 824 · 1981
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2008
9 federal appellate ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 751
Relies on Perrin v. United States · Wenzler v. Pitchess · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Jones · Gibson v. Georgia · United States v. Heliczer
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contention that the provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 ... is limited to persons directly employed by the United States itself is wholly without merit.... The trial court instructed the jury “that a person employed to assist the United States [m]arshal ... is one of the employees referred to in [§ 1114].” The instruction was correct.”
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.