United States v. Markiewicz’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 786 · 1992
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably United States v. Samaria (2001), United States v. Hernandez-Fundora (1995)
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1025 · 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1112 · 18 U.S.C. § 1113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1117 · 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 114 · 18 U.S.C. § 1152
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Burks v. United States · Francis v. Franklin · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]ederal enclave laws are a group of statutes that permits the federal courts to serve as a forum for the prosecution of certain crimes when they occur within the '[s]pecial maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States', 18 U.S.C. § 7 ; this jurisdiction includes federal land, and property such as federal courthouses and military bases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Ninth Circuit ... has determined that federal criminal laws [of nationwide applicability] apply of their own force to Indian territories.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter 109A, incest, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title), an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony under section 661 of this title within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. (b) Any offense referred to in subsection (a) of this section that is not defined and punished by Federal law in force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.”
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.