United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 1552 · 1993
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Schlei (1997), United States v. Brown (1995)
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Stirone v. United States · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the evidence presented by the government against [the defendant] would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that he knew of the planned bank robbery, it does not support the conclusion that he participated in the agreement or the accomplishments of its goals. The evidence is simply not enough for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] participated in the conspiracy to rob the [bank].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Hobbs Act definition of robbery does not seem to require a finding of specific intent whereas at common law robbery required such a finding”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing on the face of the statute suggests a congressional intent to limit its coverage to persons who have engaged in “racketeering.” To the contrary, the statutory language sweeps within it all persons who have “in any way or degree ... affect[ed] commerce by robbery or extortion.” These words do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation; as we have recognized, they “manifest ... a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence.” The statute, moreover, carefully defines its key terms, such as “robbery” ...”
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.