United States v. Ackell’s Empirical Analysis
907 F.3d 67 · 2018
Citation profile
1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 2261A · 18 U.S.C. § 2266 (§ 40221 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 875 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · United States v. Salerno · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · New York v. Ferber
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consider de novo whether an instruction embodied an error of law, but we review for abuse of discretion whether the instructions adequately explained the law or whether they tended to confuse or mislead the jury on the controlling issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“an intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, harass, or intimidate another person[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress”
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.