United States v. Shultz’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.3d 616 · 2013
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ohio Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3583
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Troxel v. Granville · Miller v. California · United States v. James Griggs Raines · Jacobellis v. Ohio
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As [the defendant] reads the condition, it has no limits, as he might use almost anything—say a description of sex in a science textbook or a photograph of a clothed child—for titillation. That broad reading of the provision might indeed create problems, both under the sentencing statute and the First Amendment. See Zobel, 696 F.3d at 575-78 . Yet a fairer, more common sense reading of [the special condition] exists—that it covers only material designed (in a reasonably objective sense) to produce deviant sexual arousal. So interpreted, the condition may stand. It is reasonable to prevent [the defendant] from possessing material whose purpose is the provocation of his sexual interest in children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.