United States v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 1029 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably United States v. McAlpine (1994), 82 Wash. App. 594 - State v. Jackson (1996)
16 federal appellate · 2 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. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Smith v. Maryland · United States v. Salvucci · Minnesota 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact that Mr. Lyons stole the software in conjunction with the theft of tangible hardware distinguishes this case from Brown. Brown recognizes that the theft of intangible intellectual property in conjunction with the theft of tangible property falls within the ambit of § 2314. Id. at 1307-08 n. 14. Unlike the present case, there was no evidence in Brown that defendant was involved in the physical theft or transportation of stolen tangible property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an age where the intangible intellectual property value of goods may vastly exceed the intrinsic worth of accompanying tangible goods, application of the letter and intent of the Sentencing Guidelines mandates that courts include intangible value when thefts of tangible objects occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because expectations of privacy derive in part from the right to exclude others from the property in question, lawful possession is an important consideration in determining whether a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.”
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.