Higgins v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.3d 97 · 2012
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 4 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 18 U.S.C. § 751 · 18 U.S.C. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law) · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Taylor v. United States · United States v. Aguilar · Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States · Mufied v. Mukasey
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to— (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he offenses entitled "Obstruction of Justice" all required "the critical element of an affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice.” [Espinoza-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec.] at 894. "In other words ... it must include as elements both (1) the actus reus of an 'active interference with proceedings of a tribunal or investigation, or action or threat of action against those who would cooperate in the process of justice,' and (2) the mens rea of a ‘specific intent to interfere with the process of justice.’ ” Higgins v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97 , 102 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Espinoza-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 893).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the critical element of an affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice.” [Espinoza-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec.] at 894.”
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.