Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 F.3d 891 - United States v. Hayes

United States v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis

236 F.3d 891 · 2001

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
January 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Payne v. Pauley (2003), McDonald v. Village of Winnetka (2004)

14 federal appellate ·

220200120102020decided

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

Relies on United States v. Armstrong · United States v. Evans · United States v. Griffin · United States v. Colonia · United States v. Alcantar

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

  1. “an exacting standard[] [which] can be met, for instance, by showing that it would have been physically impossible for the witness to observe what he described, or it was impossible under the laws of nature for those events to have occurred at all. In contrast, witnesses’ disagreements about such facts as the color or direction of the car are routine conflicts in testimony, inconsistencies well within the province of the jury to sort out.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “law enforcement agents . . . reasonably believe, in light of the facts and circumstances within their knowledge at the time of the arrest, that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]n order to obtain discovery on such a claim, a defendant must at least produce some evidence that similarly-situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted but were not.”
    1 later decision 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.