Tenth Circuit· 9/5/2007
United States v. Schaefer
Citations
- 501 F.3d 1197
- 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21200
- 2007 WL 2537656
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The phrase ‘including by computer’ specifies a method of interstate movement; the government must still establish that any computer-related movement crossed state lines.”
- “We recognize in many, if not most, situations the use of the Internet will involve the movement of communications or materials between states. But this fact does not suspend the need for evidence of this interstate movement.” (footnote omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Tymkovich, Ebel, Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information & ResearchTenth Circuit· 2008-05-29· cited 124×
- United States v. WrightNinth Circuit· 2010-11-04· cited 111×
- United States v. PiresFirst Circuit· 2011-04-06· cited 95×
- United States v. David RunyonFourth Circuit· 2013-02-25· cited 88×
- United States v. KiefferTenth Circuit· 2012-06-11· cited 76×
- United States v. VigilTenth Circuit· 2008-04-29· cited 66×
- United States v. KochEighth Circuit· 2010-11-17· cited 60×
- United States v. ScheneTenth Circuit· 2008-09-29· cited 55×
- United States v. DobbsTenth Circuit· 2011-01-05· cited 52×
- United States v. LamyTenth Circuit· 2008-04-01· cited 41×
- United States v. SturmTenth Circuit· 2012-02-24· cited 34×
- United States v. LynnNinth Circuit· 2011-02-23· cited 24×
- United States v. Michael ClarkSixth Circuit· 2022-01-24· cited 19×
- United States v. Robert HaasSeventh Circuit· 2022-06-21· cited 14×
- United States v. O'DonovanFirst Circuit· 2025-01-15· cited 11×
- United States v. HarrisSecond Circuit· 2013-12-18· cited 7×
- United States v. DaytonTenth Circuit· 2011-04-04· cited 5×
- United States v. SturmTenth Circuit· 2011-04-04· cited 5×
- State v. TaylorOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-05-31· cited 3×
- United States v. LynnNinth Circuit· 2011-05-31· cited 1×
Cites
34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court· 1993-04-26· cited 16,571×
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1995-12-06· cited 3,526×
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. AdamsSupreme Court· 2001-03-21· cited 1,312×
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court· 1997-06-26· cited 1,180×
- Gonzales v. RaichSupreme Court· 2005-06-06· cited 1,051×
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1990-12-03· cited 742×
- Scarborough v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1977-06-06· cited 579×
- United States v. AhidleyTenth Circuit· 2007-05-25· cited 447×
- Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1985-06-03· cited 306×
- United States v. KimlerTenth Circuit· 2003-07-07· cited 253×
- United States v. RunyanFifth Circuit· 2002-04-18· cited 192×
- United States v. CardallTenth Circuit· 1989-09-06· cited 159×
- United States v. American Building Maintenance IndustriesSupreme Court· 1975-06-24· cited 153×
- United States v. TuckerTenth Circuit· 2002-09-16· cited 149×
- United States v. James E. MacEwanThird Circuit· 2006-04-05· cited 140×
- United States v. GoodeTenth Circuit· 2007-04-16· cited 129×
- United States v. AlpersSupreme Court· 1950-02-13· cited 127×
- United States v. LawrenceTenth Circuit· 2005-04-20· cited 118×
- United States v. William Riley SimpsonTenth Circuit· 1998-08-17· cited 105×
- United States v. Christopher B. CarrollFirst Circuit· 1997-02-03· cited 92×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.