United States v. Gresham’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 258 · 1997
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Mares (2005), United States of America v. Mitchell Ray Daugherty (2001)
48 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5801 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5811 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5812 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Marchetti v. United States · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch · Scarborough v. United States · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the evidence is newly discovered and was unknown to him at the time of trial; (2) that the failure to discover the evidence was not due to his lack of diligence; (3) that the evidence is not merely cumulative, but is material; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is axiomatic that expert opinions may be based on facts or data of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field, even if the sources are not admissible evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have regularly upheld such expert testimony against hearsay challenges, holding that expert testimony is admissible to satisfy the jurisdictional nexus required by 922(g)(1).”
1 later decision 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.