United States v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.2d 388 · 1975
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Buttorff (1978), United States v. Wright (1976)
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 18 U.S.C. § 925 · 26 U.S.C. § 5205
Relies on Hoffa v. United States · United States v. Bass · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · Federal Power Commission v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. · Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n drafting § 2113, Congress intended to limit federal bank robbery prosecutions to a single count charging the appropriate level of crime and precluding additional charges for conduct within § 2113's coverage under statutes outside the scheme.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'is to afford an adequate opportunity for the trial judge to correct mistakes in his charge and for the opposing party to keep the record clear of error,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Count III of the indictment charged Phillips with receiving and possessing firearms after having been convicted of a felony, a violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). Phillips notes that § 922(h)(1) contains a similar provision, carrying a greater maximum penalty, also prohibiting receipt of firearms by a felon. However, any doubt that the Government was free to choose either statute is resolved by the fact that Congress enacted both statutes simultaneously. Both 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1) and 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1) were reenacted without relevant change by different titles of the Gun Control Act of 1968. If Congress intended § 922 to be comprehensive to the exclusion of § 1202(a)(1) for punishing identical conduct, it is inexplicable why it would reenact both statutes in the same Act. The three charges against the defendant were lawfully joined in the indictment. See Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Crim.P.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.