United States v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
579 F.2d 474 · 1978
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2004
20 federal appellate ·
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. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dorszynski v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Hampton v. United States · United States v. Gaddis · United States v. Calhoun
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Count One ( 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6))] required the making of a false statement in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm. The offense is committed whether or not a firearm is acquired. [Count Two ( 18 U.S.C. § 922 (h)(1)) ] is violated if an individual received a firearm that is shipped in interstate commerce. There is no necessity of showing that the firearm was acquired by making false statements to a firearms dealer during a purchase. Receipt is unique to Count Two just as a false statement is unique to Count One.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“separate offenses may arise out of the same act provided each offense requires proof of at least one different element.”
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.