Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 F.3d 1419 - United States v. Singleton

United States v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis

16 F.3d 1419 · 1994

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

100 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Bishop (1995), United States v. Portillo (1994)

100 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

9701994200020102020decided

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. § 2111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter · United States v. Dixon

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

  1. “, possessing a firearm as defined in section 921 of this title,” and inserted”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The mere fact that section 2119 was enacted after section 924(c)(1), but does not reference section 924(c)(1), does not alter our conclusion that Congress intended cumulative punishments under the two statutes. “Congress may make a plain statement of its intent to stack punishments in a specified class of crimes as it did in § 924(c)(1). Once Congress does that, it need not reiterate that intent in any subsequent statutes that fall within the previously defined class.””
    4 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.