Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 F.3d 1159 - United States v. Mauldin

United States v. Mauldin’s Empirical Analysis

109 F.3d 1159 · 1997

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Crowder (1998), United States v. Mack (2000)

25 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1901997200020102020decided

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) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Bailey v. United States · Griffith v. Kentucky · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. · Jusino v. Brown · Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

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

  1. “[Defendant] contends that the government should be bound by its original notice [which incorrectly listed a prior conviction as carrying a maximum term of only six years]. The government correctly points out that the ACCA does not require notice prior to enhancement.”
    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.