United States v. Kozminski’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1186 · 1987
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2005 · most notably United States v. Kozminski (1988), United States v. Bonds (1993)
22 federal appellate · 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1584 · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996)
Relies on Frye v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Jones v. Howard · Maness v. Meyers
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.
“(1) a qualified expert; (2) testifying on a proper subject; (3) in conformity to a generally accepted explanatory theory; (4) the probative value of which outweighs any prejudicial effect.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Novak v. United States · Carpenter“(a) the servant believes that he or she has no viable alternative but to perform service for the master (b) because of (1) the master's use or threatened use of physical force, or (2) the master's use or threatened use of state-imposed legal coercion ( i.e., peonage), or (3) the master's use of fraud or deceit to obtain or maintain services where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or one who is mentally incompetent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.