United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
905 F.2d 245 · 1990
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. Yousef (2003), Hilao v. Estate of Marcos (1994)
60 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 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 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 19 U.S.C. § 1401 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n order to apply extraterritorially a federal criminal statute to a defendant consistently with due process, there must be a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the United States, so that such application would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is unlawful for any person on board ... a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ... to knowingly or intentionally manufacture or distribute, or to possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“International law principles may be useful as a rough guide of whether a sufficient nexus exists between the defendant and the United States so that application of the statute in question would not violate due process. However, danger exists that empha sis on international law principles will cause us to lose sight of the ultimate question: would application of the statute to the defendant be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair?”
2 later decisions 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.