United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
824 F.2d 313 · 1987
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Munoz-Flores (1988), United States v. Terry (1996)
19 federal appellate · 4 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. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 42 U.S.C. § 10601 (Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 1996)
Relies on Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · United States v. Borden Co. · Rodriguez v. United States · United States v. Sharpnack · Ray 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The court shall assess on any person convicted of an offense against the United States— (1) in the case of a misdemeanor— (A) the amount of $25 if the defendant is an individual; and (B) the amount of $100 if the defendant is a person other than an individual; and (2) in the case of a felony— (A) the amount of $50 if the defendant is an individual; and (B) the amount of $200 if the defendant is a person other than an individual. (b) Such amount so assessed shall be collected in the manner that fines are collected in criminal cases.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that a federal court could not apply the federal assessment to someone convicted of an assimilated Maryland traffic offense without violating the ACA's admonition that federal convictees be subject to a 'like punishment’ as state convic-tees” because the assessment was punitive, and could therefore”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he ACA assimilates the entire substantive criminal law of the state, including laws relating to the definition and scope of an offense and laws governing the manner in which an offense is to be punished.”
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.