Thrall v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 313 · 1974
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Paredes-Urrestarazu v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1994), United States v. Ramos (1992)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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
Relies on United States v. Bass · Brewer v. United States · Ex parte Garland · Jerome v. United States · Blitz v. Boog
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is unlikely that Congress intended, in effect, to confer an even broader power on the 50 state governors, free of the standards and limitations placed on the Treasury Secretary. If a state pardon were an alternative to relief under § 925(c), the exception for crimes involving a firearm would have little vitality. * * * * * * “Where Congress did intend that a state pardon exempt an individual from a portion of the federal gun control laws, it had no difficulty expressing that intention.” 503 F.2d at 316 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]bsent an express contrary intention, the scope of a federal statute normally is not dependent on state law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘“A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender, and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense ... it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights.’” Id. at 380 of 71 U.S.”
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.