Nealy v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
837 F.2d 210 · 1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2007
7 federal appellate ·
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. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Jizmejian v. United States · Sigmond v. United States · Kush v. Rutledge · Williams v. 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he debates surrounding the [section] revealed a Congressional intent to insulate witnesses, parties and grand or petit jurors from conspiracies to pressure or intimidate them in the performance of their duties”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kinney v. Weaver
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.