Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F.3d 25 - United States v. Daniels

United States v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis

3 F.3d 25 · 1993

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2010 · most notably Alabama v. Michael Herman Bozeman (2001), Alabama v. Bozeman (2001)

34 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

310199320002010decided

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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Anders v. California · United States v. Olano · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co.

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

  1. “[i]t is well established in this circuit that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be resolved on direct appeal where the claim was not raised in the district court, unless the critical facts are not in dispute and a sufficiently developed record exists.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e have held—as have several other circuits—that a brief interruption in state prison confinement for purposes of arraignment, where the prisoner is returned to state custody the same day, does not violate the IAD.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”
    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.