United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense&emdash; (A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or (B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impractical, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of&emdash; (i) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction, or (ü) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned; (2) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim&emdash; (A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment; (B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and (C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense; (3) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury [that] also results in the death of a victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services; and (4) in any case, if the victim (of if the victim is deceased, the victim’s estate) consents, make restitution in services in lieu of money, or make res”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Mikolajczyk · United States v. Milstein

2. “[T]he fact that the goals of the Act may be thwarted by denying lost income restitution does not authorize us to ignore the plain language of the statute. Congress is clearly capable of authorizing restitution for lost income when it chooses to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (b)(2). Despite this fact, it has not included lost income in the type of restitution that may be ordered in property cases and, unless and until it amends the statute to include lost income, courts may not order such restitution in property cases.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Sharp · United States v. Wilfong

3. “[United States Code Section] 3663(a)(2) states that “[i]f the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution ... the court shall state on the record the reasons therefore.” The statute does not require that the court state its reasons if full restitution is ordered. Further, as we stated in United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988): We are not persuaded that the district court must spread its findings and conclusions on the record in every ease in which full restitution is ordered. The decision to assign reasons is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, guided by this singular inquiry — • absent an assignment of its reasons, does the record contain sufficient data for the appellate court to perform its mandated review? If the record provides an adequate basis for that review, the court need not assign specific reasons for its decision to order full restitution. If the record is insufficient, reasons must be assigned. In this case the presentence report, which is a part of the record, sets forth the specific findings as to each victim’s damages. Under these circumstances the court need not make those findings on the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 201 W. Va. 271 - State v. Lucas