United States v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.3d 177 · 2007
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Fry (2010), United States v. Campbell (2008)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Ohio v. Roberts
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Presence alone’ near a gun ... does not ‘show the requisite knowledge, power, or intention to exercise control over’ the gun to prove constructive possession.” (quoting United States v. Birmley, 529 F.2d 103 , 107-08 (6th Cir.1976))); United States v. Newsom, 452 F.3d 593 , 609 (6th Cir.2006) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency” and therefore were nontestimonial. Id. at 225. In reaching its decision, the Court deemed it significant”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“suggested that the engagement had not reached the stage of a retrospective inquiry into an emergency gone by. No reasonable officer could arrive at a scene while the victim was still “screaming” and “crying” about a recent threat to her life by an individual who had a gun and who was likely still in the vicinity without perceiving that an emergency still existed. And nothing that [the victim] told them, and certainly nothing about the way she told it to them, would have allayed concerns of a continuing threat to [the victim] and the public safety, to say nothing of officer safety.”
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.