United States v. Cherry’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 748 · 1991
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Castillo (1998), United States v. Hatchett (1994)
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 2031 · 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2242 · 18 U.S.C. § 2243 · 18 U.S.C. § 2245 (§ 60010 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Kolender v. Lawson · Parker v. Levy · Chapman v. United States · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his requirement of the presence of culpable intent as a necessary element of the offense does much to destroy any force in the argument”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“eaus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act by means of express or implied threats or placing another in fear (other than by threats of, or placing in fear of, harm described in proposed section 2241(a)(2)). The requirement of force may be satisfied by a showing that the threat or intimidation created in the victim’s mind an apprehension or fear of harm to self or others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[e]rrors of constitutional dimension ... are more freely noticed than are less serious, non-constitutional errors.' However, even in the case of alleged constitutional error we may reverse in the absence of an objection in the district court only 'if we find reversal necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice.'”
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.