Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 379 F.3d 1114 - United States v. Marks

United States v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

379 F.3d 1114 · 2004

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Moreno-Hernandez (2005), United States v. Murillo (2005)

30 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

260200420102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Custis v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Daniels v. United States · Boufford v. Moore · Beecham 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although § 921(a)(20) does direct federal courts to look to state law to determine whether there is a qualifying predicate conviction, this requirement has been satisfied in this case by the jury’s verdict of guilty of the charge of assault in the second degree, a crime punishable by a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment, a twenty thousand dollar fine, or both.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it is the fact of a felony conviction, with no intervening vacatur or other affirmative official action by the state to nullify the conviction, that triggers the firearms disability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that such a conviction was not disabling between the time it was obtained and the time it was set aside.”
    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.