McCarthy v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.3d 118 · 1998
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Romandine v. United States (2000), Levine v. Apker (2006)
18 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Barden v. Keohane · United States v. Williams · United States v. Sackinger · United States v. Clayton
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he first subsection of [§ 3584(a)], which says when concurrent and consecutive sentences may be imposed, and specifies which of those dispositions will be assumed in the absence of indication by the sentencing judge ... addresses only “multiple terms of imprisonment ... imposed ... at the same time” and “a term of imprisonment ... imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment.” Here the state sentence is not imposed at the same time as the federal sentence, and the defendant was not already subject to that state sentence [at the time of the federal sentencing]. ... [Accordingly,] § 3584(a) does not cover this situation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The opening sentence of § 3584(a) establishes that this statute applies where multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or where a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. The presumptions established by the last two sentences of § 3584(a) must be read in light of this limiting language at the beginning of the section. As defendant was neither subjected to multiple terms of imprisonment at the same time nor was he already subject to his state sentence when his federal sentence was imposed, the presumption that terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively does not apply to him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]lthough petitioner emphasizes the state court's designation of its sentence to run concurrently with petitioner's federal sentence, we note that the state court's intent is not binding on federal authorities.”
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.