Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 F.3d 138 - United States v. Blake

United States v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis

59 F.3d 138 · 1995

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Lang (1996), United States v. Gay (2001)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

2201995200020102020decided

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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Chapman v. United States · Moskal v. United States · Ladner v. United States · Deal v. United States · United States v. Johnson

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

  1. “occurs when the same conduct on the part of the defendant is used to support separate increases under separate enhancement provisions which necessarily overlap, are indistinct, and serve identical purposes.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “18 U.S.C. §§ 844 (h), 924(c), and 929(a) provide mandatory minimum penalties for the conduct proscribed. To avoid double counting, when a sentence under this section is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, any specific offense characteristic for explosive dr firearm discharge, use, or possession is not applied in respect to such underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.