United States v. Ramey’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 602 · 1994
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably Jones v. United States (2000), United States v. Green (2010)
18 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Harmelin v. Michigan · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendants argue that the level should have been only 20, because the court should have picked a 12-level specific offense characteristic — arson of a residence. § 2K1.4(b)(3). They say that the concept of a “residence” necessarily implies a risk of death or bodily injury. This assertion is not quite true. The arsonist may know that a dwelling is unoccupied when he burns it, or perhaps he might burn the residence in a manner that does not create a “substantial” risk of death or bodily injury. In any event, the arson guideline contemplates that its specific offense characteristics will often overlap, and provides that the one resulting in the highest offense level should apply. U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(b) (1989). The district court found that it was a mere “fortuity” that neither Vance nor Nelms was seriously injured or killed in the fire. The district court did not err in fact or law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building ... used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years or fined not more than $10,000, or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Certainly [the statute's] language of inclusion cannot be tortured into an exclusion of sentences for underlying fire-related felonies.”
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.