Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 F.3d 628 - United States v. Veach

United States v. Veach’s Empirical Analysis

455 F.3d 628 · 2006

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
January 2021
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2021

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

130200620102020decided

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. § 115

Relies on General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Leocal v. Ashcroft · United States v. Brown · United States v. Rutherford · United States v. McCall

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

  1. “At the outset, the analysis in [United States v. Walker, 393 F.3d 819 (8th Cir.2005)] ignores the more flexible articulation of [section] 4B1.2's "crime of violence” definition explained in its commentary section. See USSG § 4B1.2 cmt. n. 1. There this "or otherwise” language is removed, and the inclusion of offenses with conduct posing serious potential risk of physical injury is de-linked from any preceding specific sequence of offenses.... [T]he commentary ... in a separate sentence explains that "[o]ther offenses are included as 'crimes of violence’ if ... the conduct ... by its nature, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]ther offenses are included as 'crimes of violence’ if ... the conduct ... by its nature, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. United States v. Moore, 420 F.3d 1218 , 1221-22 (10th Cir.2005); see also James, 127 S.Ct. at 1592-93 (rejecting application of ejusdem generis in interpreting the residual (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] defendant need not -73- intend to violate the law to commit a general intent crime, but he must actually intend to do the act that the law proscribes.”
    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.