United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004) · 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2256 · 42 U.S.C. § 16911
Relies on Dolan v. United States Postal Service · 636 F. Supp. 828 - United States v. Dost · United States v. Horn · United States v. Bohr · United States v. Cortez
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These videos could not be considered to have been intended to elicit a sexual response in the viewer any more than mere nudity would, which several courts have concluded is not of a sexual character. We do have some limited context ... that [the defendant] set up a camera ... but that context indicates nothing more than an attempt to capture mere nudity and is very different than a person ... telling a minor to undress, lay on a bed, and open his legs for a nude photo. 27”
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.