United States v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
923 F.2d 1253 · 1991
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States of America v. Anton Tittjung (2000), United States v. Breyer (1994)
13 federal appellate · 3 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 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (§ 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1451 (§ 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Cheek v. United States · Kungys v. United States · Schneiderman v. United States · Fedorenko v. United States · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is clear that service as an armed concentration camp guard constitutes assisting in persecution under the DPA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The solution ... lies not in “interpreting” the Act to include a voluntariness requirement that the statute itself does not impose, but in focusing on whether particular conduct can be considered assisting in the persecution of civilians. Thus, an individual who did no more than cut the hair of female inmates before they were executed cannot be found to have assisted in the persecution of civilians. On the other hand there can be no question that a guard who was issued a uniform and armed with a rifle and a pistol, who was paid a stipend, and was regularly allowed to leave the concentration camp to visit a nearby village, and who admitted to shooting at escaping inmates on orders from the commandant of the camp, fits within the statutory language about persons who assisted in the persecution of civilians. Other cases may present more difficult line-drawing problems but we need decide only this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nazi concentration camps were places of persecution; individuals who, armed with guns, held the prisoners captive and prodded them into forced labor with threats of death or capital punishment cannot deny that they aided the Nazis in their program of racial, political, and religious oppression.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.