United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 62 · 1995
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably United States v. Manigan (2010), United States of America v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez (2001)
37 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Stinson v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Latimer v. Stainer
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]nce the prosecution has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was present at the site of the charged conduct, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant to show that a connection between the firearm and the offense is clearly improbable.... Subsection 2Dl.l(b)(l) itself does not require a connection between the offense and the firearm. It requires only that the firearm have been possessed by the defendant. The commentary, moreover, provides simply that “the adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present....” If a weapon was present, the enhancement applies unless a connection was clearly improbable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government has the burden under § 2D1.1 to demonstrate the proximity of the firearm to the site of the charged offense by a preponderance of the evidence. If the government is successful, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that a connection between the weapon and the offense was clearly improbable.”
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.