United States v. Atcheson’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.3d 1237 · 1996
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Nelson (1998), United States v. Leslie (1997)
73 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. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Blockburger v. United States · Griffin v. California · United States v. Young · Darden v. Wainwright
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ffect on interstate commerce, however small, is established by proof of an actual impact, however small, or in the absence of actual impact, by proof of a probable or potential impact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The evidence before the district court establishes that McGrath and Atcheson attempted to obtain, or obtained, out-of-state credit or ATM cards from each of the victims except Deanna Rosen. These acts created a sufficient potential effect on interstate commerce to support their convictions under the Hobbs Act. See United States v. Rushdan, 870 F.2d 1509 , 1512 (9th Cir.1989) (conspiracy to possess out-of-state bank cards illegally, and illicit possession of out-of-state bank cards, are offenses which affect interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(3)). McGrath and Atcheson’s placement of out-of-state phone calls to determine the victims’ account balances and credit card limits created a further connection with interstate commerce. United States v. Lee, 818 F.2d 302 , 305-06 (4th Cir.1987) (interstate telephone call by a bank manager triggered by defendant’s attempt to use credit card was sufficient to establish interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 1029 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even where the connection to interstate commerce was slight. See, e.g., [United States v. Pascucci, 943 F.2d 1032 , 1035 (9th Cir.1991) ] (defendant threatened to deliver embarrassing audio tapes to his victim’s employer, a corporation engaged in interstate commerce); United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127 , 1130-31 (9th Cir.1982) (defendant robbed three undocumented alien farm workers, affecting the movement of labor across borders); United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495 , 501 (9th Cir.1978) (defendant’s extortion “threatened the depletion of resources from a business engaged in interstate commerce”).”
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.