Mathis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
579 U.S. 500 · 2016
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Taylor v. United States · Shepard v. United States · McCarthy 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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But if the crime of conviction covers any more conduct than the generic offense, then it is not an ACCA [enumerated offense] -- even if the defendant's actual conduct (i.e., the facts of the crime) fits within the generic offense's boundaries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the modified [categorical] approach serves -- and serves solely -- as a tool to identify the elements of the crime of conviction when a statute's disjunctive phrasing renders one (or more) of them opaque.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to a limited class of documents (for example, the indictment, jury instructions, or plea agreement and colloquy) to determine what crime, with what elements, a defendant was convicted of.”
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.