United States v. Frederick’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.3d 754 · 2005
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably United States v. Arnold (2007), United States v. Kuehne (2008)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Blakely v. Washington · Bailey v. United States · Smith v. United States · Quercia 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]equisition of a firearm in exchange for drugs is a sufficient “specific nexus” between the drugs and the guns to constitute possession “in furtherance of’ the drug sale.... As a matter of logic, a defendant’s willingness to accept possession of a gun as consideration for some drugs he wishes to sell does “promote or facilitate” that illegal sale. If the defendant did not accept possession of the gun, and instead insisted on being paid fully in cash for his drugs, some drug sales — and therefore some drug trafficking crimes — would not take place.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Possession may be either actual or constructive and it need not be exclusive but may be joint. Actual possession exists when a tangible object is in the immediate possession or control of the party. Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others. Both actual possession and constructive possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary that such evidence remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to determine whether they adequately informed the jury of the relevant considerations and provided a basis in law for aiding the jury in reaching its decision.”
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.