United States v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 334 · 1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2018
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 25 U.S.C. § 2804 · 25 U.S.C. § 450H (§ 103 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975)
Relies on United States v. Schrader
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“under 25 U.S.C. § 2804 (f), [persons with 638 contracts], though not otherwise federal employees, are employees of the Department of the Interior for purposes of § 111 of Title 18 when acting under authority granted by the Secretary under 25 U.S.C. § 2804 (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is doubtless true ... that not every person employed to carry out a 'Public Law 638 contract' fits this definition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to perform law-enforcement functions that would otherwise be performed by BIA officers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.