United States v. Kim’s Empirical Analysis
963 F.2d 65 · 1992
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2320 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Williams v. United States · Perrin v. United States · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Fussell v. Price · McFadden v. Derwinski
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the retail value of the infringing items exceed[s] $2,000.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“correctly used the retail value for genuine merchandise to determine the increase in the defendant's offense level under section 2B5.3.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“refers to the retail value of the counterfeited rather than the genuine merchandise). The retail value of the genuine merchandise may be relevant, however, in determining the retail value of the infringing items and serves as a ceiling price for counterfeit products whose value is not easily calculated. See id. at 69. 29 The government acknowledges that there was a readily-identifiable black market value of $50 for complete counterfeit Microsoft”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Bao
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.