United States v. Halloran’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.3d 321 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · City of Chicago v. Morales · Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission · Leocal v. Ashcroft · Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Under the 'fair notice' prong, a court must determine 'whether the statute, either standing alone or as construed, made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant's conduct was criminal.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[a] person commits wire fraud when, 'having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud,' he uses interstate wires 'for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.'”
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.