Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 F.3d 300 - United States v. Rowlett

United States v. Rowlett’s Empirical Analysis

23 F.3d 300 · 1994

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

30 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Hurst (2000), United States v. Massey (2006)

30 federal appellate ·

3001994200020102020decided

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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · Smith v. United States · United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. · Deal v. United States · United States v. Turley

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

  1. “[i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f any firearm was stolen, or had an altered or obliterated serial number.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether or not the theft constitutes common law larceny”
    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.