Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.3d 1349 - United States v. McCarty

United States v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis

36 F.3d 1349 · 1994

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
February 2020
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. John (2010), United States v. Inocencio (1994)

35 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3201994200020102020decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Huddleston v. United States · Missouri v. Hunter · Zafiro v. United States · Santoni v. United States

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

  1. “Such a miscarriage would exist only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, or ... because the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts . . . may . . . be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As used in § 2113(a), the term ‘intimidation’ means ‘to make fearful or put into fear.’ The Government is not required to show either an ‘express verbal threat or threatening display of a weapon.’ Actual fear need not be proven, if the acts of the defendant would threaten an ordinary reasonable person. Thus, the government need show only that an ordinary person in the teller’s position would feel a threat of bodily harm from the perpetrator’s acts.”
    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.