United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 627 · 2003
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Gunn (2004), United States v. Gomez (2014)
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Olano · Richardson v. Marsh · United States v. Moore · United States v. Brooks · United States v. Pulido
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The balancing of probative value and prejudice is a highly discretionary assessment, and we accord the district court’s decision great deference, only disturbing it if no reasonable person could agree with the ruling.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he government is not required to show how [a defendant] acquired the firearm, just that he had possession of one. Even if he held a gun only to inspect it, [the defendant] would be guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if it will induce the jury to decide the case on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, rather than on the evidence presented.”
2 later decisions 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.