United States v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.2d 454 · 1989
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably United States v. Orozco-Santillan (1990), Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002)
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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. § 871 (Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Carnegie v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · Stafford v. Oklahoma · Watts 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The fact that a threat is subtle does not make it less of a threat.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court therefore construes the willfulness requirement of the statute to require only that the defendant intentionally make a statement, written or oral, in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the President, and that the statement not be the result of a mistake, duress, or coercion. The statute does not require that the defendant actually intend to carry out the threat.”
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.