U.S. v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.3d 932 · 2019
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996)
Relies on Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. · State v. Martinez · United States v. Garcia · Lewis v. United States · United States v. Johnson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The IMCA, the first version of which was enacted in 1885 . . . has likewise been described as providing a gap-filling function, see United States v. Pluff , 253 F.3d 490, 494 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Aug. 6, 2001) ("There is no difference relevant to this case between the purpose of the ACA and that of the [I]MCA. Both statutes were enacted to fill jurisdictional gaps.").”
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.