United States v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.3d 459 · 1996
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Doe (1999), United States v. Male Juvenile (2002)
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Weissbrodt v. White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona · In re Disbarment of McManus · United States v. Baker · National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation, Inc. v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees · United States v. Doe
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statutory language of 18 U.S.C. § 5032 and the regulations adopted thereunder clearly establish in whom the power to decide whether the United States will proceed against a juvenile is vested. Because the statute and regulations extend the power and discretion to make this decision to specific officers in the Department of Justice, we are unwilling to say that the filing of the need certification by the Assistant United States Attorney rises only to the level of a technical or ministerial error.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency ... shall not be proceeded against in any court of the United States unless the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to the appropriate district court of the United States that (1) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does not have available programs and services adequate for the needs of juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that is a felony or an [enumerated drug] offense, ... and that there is a substantial Federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 5032 . 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“): the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals in the Criminal Division, and the United States Attorneys (if such authority is further delegated to them by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division). 21 In addition to S 0.57, which specifically regulates juvenile need certifications, the Department--and our inquiry here--is also governed by a general delegation regulation, which makes no specific reference to juveniles:”
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.