Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.3d 1 - United States v. McLaughlin

United States v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.3d 1 · 1998

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
4
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States (2006), United States v. Santos (2000)

13 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions

2101998200020102020decided

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. § 1513 · 18 U.S.C. § 846 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on United States v. Olano · Blockburger v. United States · Penson v. Ohio · North Carolina v. Pearce · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson

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

  1. “The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[b]y using the word `thus,' the Court clearly linked its reference [in the second sentence] to the previous sentence's discussion”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Just as failing Blockburger does not preclude punishment under multiple provisions, passing Blockburger does not mandate it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.