United States v. Catrell’s Empirical Analysis
774 F.3d 666 · 2014
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1028A · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Bordenkircher v. Hayes · United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta · United States v. Sarracino · United States v. Lampley · United States v. Hicks
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his language is best viewed as descriptive rather than prescriptive.”
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.