United States v. Dillard’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.3d 88 · 2000
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Chrzanoski v. Ashcroft (2003), United States v. Gomes (2004)
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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 Bell v. Wolfish · United States v. Salerno · National Mining Ass'n v. Babbitt · James Snyder v. Sidney Trepagnier
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If one uses a gun in an act of violence, that violence necessarily occurs during the possession of the gun. Whether the person has possession of the gun only for a few seconds — the seconds during which it is used for violent purposes — or has possession for years, but uses it violently only for a few seconds, the violent use in either case necessarily occurs during — or in the course of — the possession.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) [t]he offense must be a felony; (ii) the offense must involve a “risk that physical force may be used against the person or property of another;” (Hi) that risk must result from the nature of the offense; (iv) the risk must be that the use of force would occur ‘in the course of the offense; and (v) the risk must be “substantial.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Firearms are instruments designed for the use of physical force, whether legal or illegal. Apart from use for target practice or sport, firearms have no functional utility other than to threaten or cause harm to persons, animals, or property. Firearms are therefore generally regarded as essential equipment of police and military forces, designed to enable them to use violent force (and the threat thereof) for military and peacekeeping purposes. By the same token, firearms are conventionally regarded as essential equipment of criminals engaged in violent crime. While it is possible to commit violent crimes without possession or use of a gun (by using knives, bludgeons, brute force, acids, poisons, etc.), guns are without doubt the most potent and efficient instruments of violent crime. For that reason, they are undoubtedly the instrument of choice among the vast majority of violent criminals. We think it undeniable that possession of a gun also gives rise to some risk that the gun may be used in an act of violence. By definition, without possessing a gun, one cannot use a gun for the commission of a violent act; with a gun, one can. Possession of a gun increases one’s ability to inflict harm on others and therefore involves some risk of violence. ... [T]he risk of violence results from the nature of the offense [of being a felon in possession of a firearm]. The offense is the illegal possession of a gun by a convicted felon. The dangerousness of guns and their adaptability to ”
3 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.