United States v. Grisel’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.3d 844 · 2007
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Pineda-Arrellano (2007), United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca (2011)
61 federal appellate · 5 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Taylor v. United States
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he jury instructions for section 211 of the California Penal Code require as an element that the defendant take property from another 'against that person's will.' " (citation omitted) ). II Considering the statutory text discussed above, the majority rightly concludes that, on its face, section 164.395 defines third-degree robbery more broadly than a generic theft offense under the INA. Under our case law, that should have been enough. "Where ... a state statute explicitly defines a crime more broadly than the generic definition, no 'legal imagination' is required to hold that a realistic probability exists that the state will apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of the crime.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Gñsel altered the punishment that can be imposed on federal defendants under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Under Gñsel, federal courts can no longer categorically enhance a sentence for such defendants if the underlying state statute defines “burglary to include non-buildings adapted for overnight accommodation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a structure designed for occupancy that is intended for use in one place.”
2 later decisions 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.