United States v. Apple’s Empirical Analysis
915 F.2d 899 · 1990
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably United States v. Brooks (1992), United States v. Harris (1997)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Walder v. United States · United States v. Giordano
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantial questions are raised respecting whether a defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of a drug offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere fact that a weapon was found in the home of the [trafficker] is necessarily sufficient for enhancement.”
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.