Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 197 - United States v. McPhail

United States v. McPhail’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 197 · 1997

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Reyes-Requena v. United States (2001), Triestman v. United States (1997)

25 federal appellate · 1 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. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Teague v. Lane · Bailey v. United States · Davis v. United States · Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · United States v. Calverley

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

  1. “[Bailey ] is a substantive, non-constitutional decision concerning the reach of a federal statute.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]ecause Bailey does not present a new rule of criminal procedure, and . . . does not implicate the retroactivity analysis set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), it applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[explaining] what conduct is, and always has been, criminalized by the statute”
    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.