United States v. Watchman’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.2d 616 · 1984
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Fountain (1985), United States v. Cloud (1989)
40 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Brown · United States v. Sparrow · United States v. Florence · 568 F. Supp. 516 - United States v. Welden
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is clear that the Alabama legislature . . . intended that restitution be incorporated into the traditional sentencing procedure and that it be imposed as a criminal, not civil, penalty. 'Restitution is a permissible penalty imposed on the defendant as part of sentencing.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“examine the method or process by which a sentence is imposed,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A good development of the facts would serve to reduce further litigation on the subject of “losses” by the victim or by the government and reduce the chances of mistakes. Some facts in the record as a basis for the trial court's order of restitution are also necessary should appellate review be necessary. On the other side of the coin, Congress has imposed a fact gathering requirement as to the defendant. (§ 3580(a)) This includes an ability to pay, thus an examination of financial needs and resources of defendant and of the financial needs of defendant’s dependents, “and such other factors as the court deems appropriate.” Here again there is a need to have the basic facts determined in order that the restitution order can carry out the purposes of the Act, and to reduce the risk of a mistake. Since Congress has mandated these several determinations it must be assumed that Congress also intended that sufficient time be devoted to these matters to assure completeness and accuracy....”
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.