United States v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.2d 449 · 1984
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988), United States v. Williams (1984)
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1117 · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 25 U.S.C. § 1323 · 25 U.S.C. § 903B
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · United States v. Wheeler
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'In deciding whether a defect in a jury instruction is”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n order to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. § 1152, the Government must prove, as a jurisdictional requisite, that the crime was in violation of a federal enclave law, and that the crime occurred between an Indian and a non-Indian within Indian country.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The second element is whether Matthew Stymiest is recognized as an Indian by the tribe or by the federal government or both. Among the factors that you may consider are: 1. enrollment in a tribe; 2. government recognition formally or informally through providing the defendant assistance reserved only to Indians; 3. tribal recognition formally or informally through subjecting the defendant to tribal court jurisdiction; 4. enjoying benefits of tribal affiliation; and 5. social recognition as an Indian through living on a reservation and participating in Indian social life, including whether the defendant holds himself out as an Indian. It is not necessary that all of these factors be present. Rather, the jury is to consider all of the evidence in determining whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is an Indian.”
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.