United States v. Koelling’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 817 · 1993
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Riccardi (2005), United States v. Horn (1999)
51 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Miller v. California · New York v. Ferber · Scharffe v. Perkins · Osborne v. Ohio
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. The purposes behind Section 2252 have been synopsized, by our Court of Appeals, in United States v. Koelling, 992 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir.1993), as follows: It is a goal of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251-2258 to stamp out the production and distribution of child pornography, based upon conclusions in relevant literature and upon a legislative determination that child pornography is harmful to the child victim even years after the original misdeed took place.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fact that some adults look like minors and some minors look like adults does not mean a warrant is overbroad. Most minors look like minors and most adults look like adults, and most of the time most law enforcement officers can tell the difference.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Identification of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in comparison [to the legal determination of whether expressive material is obscene], is a factual determination that leaves little latitude to the officers.”
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.