United States v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.3d 539 · 2002
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Gambone (2003), United States v. Leahy (2006)
13 federal appellate · 6 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. § 924
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Estelle v. McGuire · Francis v. Franklin · Henderson v. Kibbe
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here must be an `error' that is `plain' and that `affects substantial rights.' Moreover, [Fed.R.Crim.P.] 52(b) leaves the decision to correct the forfeited error within the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error `seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is a rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although [Defendant] was not in the bank for any of the robberies listed in the counts he challenges on this ground, the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient as a whole to show a pattern to the bank robberies that makes clear that [Defendant] not only knew that a gun would be used but that he attempted to facilitate the carrying of a gun, wished to bring about or make the crime succeed, and that the gun was instrumental to his decision to participate. Each of the seven charged robberies involved a combination of the same group of people who took turns filling in the roles necessary for the robbery. [Defendant] himself went into the bank and brandished a weapon on four of those occasions. In addition, there was specific evidence that the use of firearms was discussed during the planning stage of the crimes and that [Defendant] was in a position to observe the actual use of a firearm in at least several of the robberies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Clarke
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.