Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 718 F.2d 1210 - United States v. Sun Myung Moon

United States v. Sun Myung Moon’s Empirical Analysis

718 F.2d 1210 · 1983

Citation profile

282
cited by 282 later decisions
13
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

161 federal appellate · 17 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 282 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. Torres (1990), United States v. Console (1993)

161 federal appellate · 17 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 states

112019831990200020102020decided

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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 28 U.S.C. § 1827

Relies on Perry v. Sindermann · Irvin v. Dowd · Sandstrom v. Montana · Smith v. Phillips · Cupp v. Naughten

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 282 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[E]ach situation in this area is sui generis.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[c]ourts generally `should be hesitant[ ] to haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict ... to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct, or extraneous influences.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for [investigation], and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for [investigation] has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    7 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.