Government of Virgin Islands v. Douglas 85-3488 Government of Virgin Islands 85-3732’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 822 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably United States v. Denardi (1989), United States v. Horak (1987)
18 federal appellate · 3 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. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 48 U.S.C. § 1493 · 48 U.S.C. § 1561
Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Will v. United States · United States v. Wilson · Houltin v. United States
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]hallenges of a district court judge's power to impose a particular sentence fall within the narrow range of cases in which mandamus may be appropriate”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The requirement that a duty be "clearly defined”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“suggests that Congress understood the preexisting law to provide that such [sentencing] orders were not appealable”). 13 . Section 1963 was revised in 1984 as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The text now reads: (a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law— (1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962; (2) any— (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over; any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of in violation of section 1962; and (3)any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. 18 U.S.C. § 1963 . 14 . We do not decide the question whether stock in Waste would constitute an "interest in”
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.