Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 F.3d 11 - Proyect v. United States

Proyect v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

101 F.3d 11 · 1996

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
August 2018
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Miller (1997), United States of America v. Ruben Feliciano Nelson Gonzalez (2000)

30 federal appellate · 4 district ·

240199620002010decided

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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Lopez · Wickard v. Filburn · Perez v. United States · Maryland v. Wirtz · Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he fact that certain intrastate activities within this class ... may not actually have a significant effect on interstate commerce is ... irrelevant”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'determined by the class of activities regulated by the statute as a whole, not by the simple act for which an individual defendant is convicted.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “court [s] must defer to a congressional finding that a regulated activity affects interstate commerce, if there is any rational basis for such a finding.”
    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.