United States v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
916 F.3d 368 · 2019
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1515 · 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (§ 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Sorrells v. United States · Mathews v. United States · Luce v. United States
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Government has similarly failed to provide evidence demonstrating that Young ... designed his conduct to thwart [the grand jury] investigation, rather than designing his conduct to obstruct an FBI inquiry ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“implies 'some formal convocation of the agency in which parties are directed to appear, instead of any informal investigation conducted by any member of the agency.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the only way the jury could have concluded he foresaw a particular grand jury investigation would be through speculation.”
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.