United States v. Hallman’s Empirical Analysis
23 F.3d 821 · 1994
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. Voigt (1996), United States v. Crandon (1999)
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 18 U.S.C. § 3668 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742
Relies on Continental Casualty Co. v. UNR Industries, Inc. · United States v. Beddow · United States v. Kopp · United States v. Palma · United States v. Ortiz
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[pjrior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest.... Otherwise, prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that (A) occurred on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses separated by an intervening arrest {i.e., the defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense). Otherwise, prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that (A) occurred on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the value of the property taken, damaged, or destroyed. Sec. 2B1.1, (comment.) (n. 1). As an example, the application note explains: "In the case of a theft of a check ..., the loss is the loss that would have occurred if the check ... had been cashed.”
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.