United States v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
586 F.3d 526 · 2009
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Kolender v. Lawson · United States v. Lopez · United States v. Bell · United States v. Jones
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to its terms, § 921(a)(20)(A) excludes those “[fjederal or state offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.” In the final phrase, the word “similar” limits the term “offenses,” so that it refers back to the three enumerated offenses, and is further limited by “relating to the regulation of business practices.” Accordingly, an ordinary individual would have notice that the § 921(a)(20)(A) exception applies only if he or she committed an enumerated or similar offense related to the regulation of business practices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the government would have been required to prove, as an element of the predicate offense, that competition or consumers were affected.”
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.