United States v. Brantley’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.2d 159 · 1985
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Urban (2005), United States v. Goodwin (1988)
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952
Relies on Rewis v. United States · Gerry v. United States · Kolender v. Lawson · United States v. Jannotti · United States v. Archer
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon a charge of a conspiracy or an attempt to violate the Hobbs Act, it is simply irrelevant that, because of facts unknown to the conspirators or to the actor, an actual effect upon commerce was impossible. This is consistent with the general rule applicable to inchoate offenses. Though the circumstances may be misapprehended, if one “purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be,” the actor is guilty of a criminal attempt. Model Penal Code, § 5.01(l)(a). The same principle is applicable when two or more persons conspire to engage in the conduct. The facts may be taken to be as the conspirators believed them to be.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“jurisdictional predicate [of Hobbs Act] ... may be shown by proof of probabilities without evidence that any particular commercial movements were affected.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e do not think the convictions of the substantive offenses may be sustained on the basis of the defendant's mistaken assumption that commerce would be affected. The defendants were the victims of false pretense, and the falsity induced the erroneous assumption. In those circumstances, what the defendants may have believed is too fragile a connection with commerce to supply the jurisdictional predicate for conviction upon the substantive charge of obstruction by extortionate means.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.