Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 765 F.2d 1259 - United States v. Alvarez-Mena

United States v. Alvarez-Mena’s Empirical Analysis

765 F.2d 1259 · 1985

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
January 2021
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Wright-Barker (1986), United States v. Mena (1989)

26 federal appellate · 4 district ·

14019851990200020102020decided

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 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 4 · 21 U.S.C. § 955A

Relies on California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Commissioner v. Engle · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Lehman Bros. v. Lilly

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

  1. “[Gjiven the clear authority of Congress in the premises, [citing the Piracies and Felonies Clause], the relevance of international law to the problem at hand is as a reflection of Congressional intent rather than as a limitation on the power of Congress, at least where, as here, there is no basis for any claim of due process violation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]nternational law does not preclude any nation from exercising jurisdiction over stateless vessels on the high seas.”
    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.