Hall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 855 · 1995
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Manfre (2004), United States v. Balsam (2000)
18 federal appellate · 2 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. § 113
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · United States v. Medina · United States v. Jackson · United States v. Goldman
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If Hall threatened the witness, the district court had no choice but to impose the sentence enhancement that the Guidelines mandate”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 3C1.1 ... neither limits the offense of obstruction of justice to any particular factual context, such as cases concerning organized crime, nor makes exceptions for social circumstances, such as the realities of reservation life. If Hall in fact threatened the witness, the Guidelines did not give the district court discretion to refuse to take the threat into account in sentencing.... If Hall threatened the witness, the district court had no choice but to impose the sentence enhancement that the Guidelines mandate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A self-defense instruction must be given if there is evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense. A mere scintilla of evidence, however, is insufficient to require the instruction. To sustain the defense, the jury would have to find that [the defendant] used such force that he reasonably believed was necessary to protect himself from unlawful physical harm about to be inflicted upon him by another. Nor is the defendant entitled to an instruction when the evidence does not support it.”
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.