Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 F.3d 463 - United States v. McFadden

United States v. McFadden’s Empirical Analysis

13 F.3d 463 · 1994

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2011 · most notably Bailey v. United States (1995), Muscarello v. United States (1998)

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

370199420002010decided

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. § 2113 · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on Mistretta v. United States · Smith v. United States · Carolco Television Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. · Scherl v. Fisher · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation

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

  1. “the ordinary meanings of the words 'use' and 'carry' . . . connote activity beyond simple possession”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “one relevant statute, the statute creating the Sentencing Guidelines, reflects a major congressional effort to create a fairly sophisticated Sentencing Guidelines system that distinguishes among different kinds of criminal behavior and punishes accordingly. The other statute, the mandatory minimum statute, represents an ad hoc deviation from that more general policy. Given the importance (to Congress) of the Guidelines system, see Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 , 363-370 [, 109 S.Ct. 647 , 650-653, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 ] (1989), courts should take care not to interpret other statutes that represent ad hoc deviations from the basic congressionally-direct-ed effort to rationalize sentencing with unnecessary breadth.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “during and in relation to any . . . drug trafficking crime' must receive a mandatory five-year prison term added on to his drug crime sentence. 18 U.S.C. §924(c). At the same time, the Sentencing Guidelines, promulgated under the authority of a different statute, 28 U.S.C. §994, provide for a two-level (i.e., a 30% to 40%) sentence enhancement where a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.