United States v. Eyraud’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.3d 462 · 2015
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3664
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · 134 S. Ct. 1710 - Paroline v. United States · United States v. Waknine · United States v. Curran · United States v. Alverson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, requires a district court to “order a defendant to make restitution to a victim of certain specified offenses.” United States v. Anderson, 741 F.3d 938 , 951 (9th Cir.2013) (citation omitted). The amount of restitution is limited to the victim’s “actual losses” that are a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s offense. United States v. Hunter, 618 F.3d 1062 , 1064 (9th Cir.2010).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“documents accurately reflected the pertinent information contained in the privileged billing records,” the court examined the original in camera. Id. The court then confirmed that the summaries relating to work and time spent that had been extracted from the privileged material were accurate, i.e.,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“able to challenge the legal basis for the court’s order.” Id. Thus, she had been”
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.