United States v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.3d 280 · 1998
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Meade (1999), United States v. Cunningham (1998)
58 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Lopez · Armstrong v. Manzo
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to intone `ignorance of the law is no defense' [with respect to section 922(g)(8)] is to condone a violation of fundamental principles for the sake of a modest economy in the administration of criminal justice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury ...; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner ...; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner ... that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; * * * to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is wrong to convict a person of a crime if he had no reason to believe that the act for which he was convicted was a crime, or even that it was wrongful. This is one of the bedrock principles of American law.... In the unusual circumstances of this case, the maxim of expedience should yield to the bedrock principle; and there is enough room in the statutory language to achieve this end without having to, trundle out the heavy artillery of constitutional law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.