United States v. McNutt’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.2d 561 · 1990
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1997), United States v. Ashe (1995)
34 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. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on United States v. Rivera · Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · United States v. Blackmon · Lubin v. United States · United States v. Teehee
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'fraudulent use of access devices in connection with credit transactions.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny person who intentionally ... manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications ... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 3”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming....”
3 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.