Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 F.3d 107 - Gall v. United States

Gall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

21 F.3d 107 · 1994

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
3
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

110 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. Broughton-Jones (1995), Moss v. United States (2003)

110 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

960199420002010decided

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. § 3563 · 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3664 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Hill v. United States · Davis v. United States · Hughey v. United States · Delaware v. New York

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

  1. “'fundamental defect' in the proceedings which necessarily results in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error violative of due process.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a district court may order a defendant to pay restitution conditioned upon supervised release solely for crimes of which the defendant was actually charged and convicted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any person harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the scheme.”
    2 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.