United States v. Kiliz’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 628 · 1982
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Binder (1985), United States v. Carlson (1990)
38 federal appellate · 4 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. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on United States v. Sharpnack · Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co. · United States v. Press Publishing Co. · 82 Wash. 2d 872 - State v. Scheffel · 96 Wash. 2d 646 - State v. Day
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“persons on federal lands to federal prosecution in federal court for violations of criminal statutes of the state in which the federal lands are located.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would he punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District 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. (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, that which may or shall be imposed through judicial or administrative action under the law of a State, territory, possession, or district, for a conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a drug or alcohol, shall be considered to be a punishment provided by that law. Any limitation on the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle imposed under this subsection shall apply only to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“establishes a gap-filling criminal code for federal enclaves.”
4 later decisions 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.