Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 900 F.2d 748 - United States v. Pryba

United States v. Pryba’s Empirical Analysis

900 F.2d 748 · 1990

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Salinas v. United States (1997), Alexander v. United States (1993)

33 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

680199020002010decided

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. § 1465 · 18 U.S.C. § 1467 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Hamling v. United States · Solem v. Helm · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · Vandygriff v. Phillips

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

  1. “There was a nexus established between defendants' ill gotten gains from their racketeering activities and the protected materials that were forfeited. The forfeiture did not occur until after defendants were convicted of violating various obscenity statutes and of participating in a racketeering activity, and until after it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the proceeds from these criminal activities had been used to acquire the arguably protected publications.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must show that a joint trial [was] so prejudicial as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To consider community toleration as synonymous with what a community will put up with skews the test of obscenity and invites one to consider deviations from community standards, because a community can be said to put up with a number of disagreeable circumstances that it cannot stop. The District of Columbia had over 350 murders in 1989, but to say that the citizens “tolerated” this epidemic of homicides would misuse the word.”
    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.