Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.2d 29 - United States v. Durcan

United States v. Durcan’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.2d 29 · 1976

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Hernandez (1989), United States v. Day (1978)

27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

130197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 3290 · 18 U.S.C. § 542 · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Rhone-Poulenc, S. A. v. Dann · United States v. Westover · Olais-Castro v. United States · United States v. Wazney

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

  1. “In order to establish that Durcan was a ‘fugitive from justice’ within the meaning of section 922(g)(2), an indispensable requisite of the prosecution's proof was that Durcan had left Florida with the intent to avoid arrest or prosecution.”). 37 . Cf. Ballentine, 4 F.3d at 506 (stating that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he bare fact that Durcan left Florida several weeks prior to the issuance of the warrant would not be conclusive proof of his innocent intent in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary. ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no need to prove how the items were acquired and that the introduction of the evidence concerning the burglaries was error.”
    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.