United States v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 1523 · 1987
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Alexandra White Joseph Deringer Richard Graham v. Russell Lee Lynn Tamiyasu-Lee Lavera Gillespie Paul Smith Robert Zurowski John Phillips Elizabeth Julian (2000), United States v. Fulmer (1997)
69 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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. § 245 · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (§ 802 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (§ 818 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. O'Brien · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“of intent to intimidate serves to insulate the statute from unconstitutional application to protected speech”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An illegal course of conduct is not protected by the first amendment merely because the conduct was in part carried out by language in contrast to direct action. If conduct contains both speech and non-speech elements, and if Congress has the authority to regulate the non-speech conduct, incidental restrictions on freedom of speech are not constitutionally invalid.”
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.