United States v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.3d 498 · 1996
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Thompson (2005), United States of America v. Christian Ubakanma (2000)
63 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3664
Relies on Hughey v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Wright v. Wright · Joseph v. United States · Insurance Co. of North America v. United States Department of Labor
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Blake’s theft of the credit cards represents a pattern of criminal activity that was a necessary step in the accomplishment of his objective, ie., use of unauthorized access devices. But, the factual connection between his conduct and the offense of conviction is legally irrelevant for the purpose of restitution. The Government allowed Blake to plead guilty to one count of fraudulent use of unauthorized access devices.... This offense ... has four elements.... The specific conduct underlying these elements, and thus forming the basis for Blake’s offense of conviction, does not include the theft of the credit cards.... As a result, the loss to the robbery victims was not caused by Blake’s offense of conviction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For a person to be considered a victim under § 3663, the act that harms the individual must be either conduct underlying an element of the offense of conviction, or an act taken in furtherance of a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity that is specifically included as an element of the offense of conviction. But, if the harm to the person does not result from conduct underlying an element of the offense of conviction, or conduct that is part of a pattern of criminal activity that is an element of the offense of conviction, the district court may not order the defendant to pay restitution to that individual.”
2 later decisions 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.