Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 F.3d 15 - United States v. Field

United States v. Field’s Empirical Analysis

39 F.3d 15 · 1994

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Woody (1995), United States v. Morales-Madera (2003)

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

210199420002010decided

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 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on Taylor v. United States · McCarthy v. United States · United States v. Broce · Custis v. United States · United States v. Freed

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

  1. “Defendant's failure to request a downward departure on this ground in the district court forecloses our consideration of the issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Defendant seizes upon the delineated language [in Custis ] to contend that since he is no longer in custody because of his state conviction and therefore cannot attack it on constitutional grounds either in state court or by federal habeas review, he should be allowed to do so in the context of his sentencing under the ACCA This is an ingenious argument, but we do not think it can surmount the prohibition imposed by the [Custis ] Court against using the federal sentencing forum to review state convictions. .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n Taylor, the Supreme Court stated that its definition of burglary approximates the definition of burglary in the model penal code. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 598 n. 8, 110 S.Ct. at 2158 n. 8. That definition reads: “ 'A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.’ ” Id.”
    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.