Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 F.3d 71 - United States v. Abbott

United States v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis

30 F.3d 71 · 1994

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
February 2018
most recently cited

22 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Covarrubias (1995), United States v. Bradford (1996)

22 federal appellate ·

290199420002010decided

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 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Brown · United States v. Adkins · United States v. Beckham · United States v. Shoupe

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. “criminal history category significantly over-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that defendant will commit further crimes. * * * The court may conclude that the defendant's criminal history was significantly less serious than that of most defendants in the same criminal history category (Category II), and therefore consider a downward departure from the guidelines.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “remanded [the cause] to the trial court for it to determine whether a downward departure is appropriate.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[b]ecause a sentencing court is not obligated to state its reasons for refusing to depart from a sentence within the Guideline range, this Court would ordinarily assume that the district court's failure to utilize a Guideline provision available to it, indicated that it had considered and rejected its application.”
    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.