Rosemond v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
572 U.S. 65 · 2014
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Johnson v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Smith 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person is liable under § 2 for aiding and abetting a crime if (and only if) he (1) takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating the offense's commission.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] person aids and abets a crime when (in addition to taking the requisite act) he intends to facilitate that offense's commission. An intent to advance some different or lesser offense is not, or at least not usually, sufficient: Instead, the intent must go to the specific and entire crime charged ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the defendant actively participated in the underlying [crime] ... with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime's commission”
4 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.