United States v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.3d 660 · 1993
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Jones v. United States (2000), United States v. McVeigh (1998)
54 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 3796B
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Frady · United States v. Bass · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is into the function of the building itself, and then a determination of whether that function affects interstate commerce.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'used' in an activity affecting commerce”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he questions posed by the judge in the interest of clarity, completeness, and avoidance of the retrial of a lengthy case, evidence no elements of control or restriction by the court. The judge did not infringe upon the jury’s power to freely deliberate, did not require the jury to justify its actions, and did not ask “why” the jury arrived at its decision. Nor did the court challenge the jury’s power to ignore the court’s instructions if it so desired, require the jury to set aside its most valuable asset as fact finder (collective common sense), or direct the jury, intentionally or unintentionally, to follow a course initiated by the court.”
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.