United States v. Weiler’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 474 · 1972
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably United States v. McCord (1975), United States v. Xavier (1993)
14 federal appellate · 5 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. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Morissette v. United States · United States v. Harriss · United States v. Dotterweich · Lambert v. People of the State of California · United States v. Balint
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the case law at the Federal Court of Appeals level with respect to the Possession of a Gun Statute under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and (under which the Defendant was convicted) has consistently interpreted the Statute as not requiring the element of specific intent, it is submitted by the Defendant that in not requiring the element of specific intent, the Statute is unconstitutional and violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. For this reason the learned Trial Judge erred in denying the Defendant’s request to charge the jury on the issue of specific intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance ...; (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or, (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While a line between offenses of commission and omission may sometimes be difficult to draw and, when drawn, may not always be a satisfactory yardstick, the distinction is nevertheless a legitimate consideration in determining the perimeters of the Due Process Clause. Section 922(g) (1), as construed and applied by the court below, imposes criminal sanctions only for the intentional doing of an act— the transporting of a firearm across state lines by one convicted of, or indicted for, a serious crime.””
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.