United States v. Giannoni’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““Having concluded that the commerce requirement in § 1202(a) must be read as part of the ‘possesses’ and ‘receives’ offenses, we add a final word about the nexus with interstate commerce that must be shown in individual cases. The Government can obviously meet its burden in a variety of ways. We note only some of these. For example, a person ‘possesses ... in commerce or affecting commerce’ if at the time of the offense the gun was moving interstate or on an interstate facility, or if the possession affects commerce. Significantly broader in reach, however, is the offense of ‘receiving] ... in commerce or affecting commerce,’ for we conclude that the Government meets its burden here if it demonstrates that the firearm received has previously traveled in interstate commerce.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lathan · United States v. Fikes

2. “Appellant argues that the interstate commerce nexus proved in this ease of at least 13 years prior to the robbery, is simply ‘too tenuous and strained.’ He contends that this is not sufficient ‘to justify the assertion of federal jurisdiction over what is purely a local matter.’ The statute makes no such limitation and the Supreme Court in United States v. Bass (citation omitted) said: X -X- * -X- -X * The Government can obviously meet its burden in a variety of ways. We note only some of these. For example, a person ‘possesses ... in commerce or affecting commerce’ if at the time of the offense the gun was moving interstate or on an interstate facility or if the possession affects commerce. Significantly broader in reach, however, is the offense of ‘receiving) ... in commerce or affecting commerce,’ for we conclude that the Government meets its burden here if it demonstrates that the firearm received has previously traveled in interstate commerce. 404 U.S. at 350 , 92 S.Ct. at 524 . -X- * * -X- * -X- Where neither the Congress nor the Court has drawn a line as to time, we find no reason to do so. 472 F.2d at 137.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 370 F. Supp. 837 - United States v. Williams