United States v. Kember’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 451 · 1982
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Prakash v. American University (1984), United States v. Thirion (1987)
13 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Collins v. Loisel · United States v. Rauscher
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A treaty must be interpreted so as to carry out the intention of the parties; its meaning is to be ascertained by the same rules of construction and reasoning which apply to the interpretation of private contracts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 50 Fair empl.prac.cas. 714, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,202 Edward Temengil Justin Manglona Hiromi Rdiall Fred Heine Manuel Sablan Ramon Rechebei Charles Muller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Janet McCoy High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands United States Department of the Interior Manuel Lujon, Jr., Secretary of the Interior United States of America, Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees · Temengil“Any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clear ... that even as the speciality doctrine has been defined and broadened in this century, it has never been construed to permit foreign intrusion into the evidentiary or procedural rules of the requisitioning state, as distinguished from limiting the jurisdiction of domestic courts to “try or punish the fugitive for any crimes committed before the extradition, except the crimes for which he was extradited.””
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.