United States v. Macklin’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.2d 60 · 1982
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. D'Amato (1994), United States v. Mariani (1984)
26 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Molinaro v. New Jersey · Chatwin v. United States · United States v. Taylor
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he very nature of the crime of kidnapping requires that the kidnapper use some means of force — actual or threatened, physical or mental — in each elemental state of the crime, so that the victim is taken, held and transported against his or her will.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“c. Explanation. (1) Inveigle, decoy. “Inveigle” means to lure, lead astray, or entice by false representations or other deceitful means. For example, a person who entices another to ride in a car with a false promise to take the person to a certain destination has inveigled the passenger into the car. “Decoy” means to entice or lure by means of some fraud, trick, or temptation. For example, one who lures a child into a trap with candy has decoyed the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person ..., when — (1) the person is willfully transported in interstate ... commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary ... shall be punished....”
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.