Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 558 F.2d 968 - United States v. Haddad

United States v. Haddad’s Empirical Analysis

558 F.2d 968 · 1977

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
8
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Huffhines (1992), Deerfield Medical Center v. City of Deerfield Beach (1981)

67 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

36019771980199020002010decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Jones v. United States · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · United States v. Bass

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

  1. “The Court cited three reasons for its holding, all of which apply with equal force to the facts before us. First, the statutory language “is without ambiguity.” Id. 423 U.S. at 216, 96 S.Ct. 498 , 501. This language places within the reach of the statute the receipt of any firearm which “has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” There is no reason to limit this language to direct interstate receipt or receipt from one who deals in interstate firearm transactions. Second, the Court noted that the structure of the Gun Control Act of 1968, of which section 922(h) is a part indicates an intent not merely to prohibit certain interstate transactions in firearms, but to remove firearms from the hands of persons Congress felt were dangerous, to wit, felons. The Court listed as its third reason the legislative history of the Gun Control Act and of Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which the Gun Control Act amended. This legislative history also supports the interpretation of the Congressional intent derived from the structure of the Act. The proximity of the felons (sic) receipt of the firearm to interstate commerce has little relationship to the accomplishment of the statutory goal. Appellant’s receipt of the pistol clearly falls within the intended reach of section 922(h). [Citation omitted.] 558 F.2d 1 . c. 972.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To establish standing, appellant must establish that he had a possessory interest in the hotel room sufficient to support a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In determining whether there has been an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers (and likewise to determine whether the objector has been the victim of an invasion of privacy), a federal court must make an independent inquiry, whether or not there has been such an inquiry by a state court and irrespective of how such an inquiry may have turned out. The test is one of federal law, neither enlarged by what one state court may have countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have colorably suppressed.”
    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.