Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 937 F.3d 8 - United States v. Wright

United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

2019

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
June 2025
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (§ 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2332B (§ 702 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (§ 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Neder v. United States · Patterson v. New York · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · United States v. Zannino

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “). Superseding indictments added a count for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(2) and (c) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “); and obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 , and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (”
    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.