Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 54 · 1980
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Valentine (1983), United States v. Alverson (1982)
27 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 923 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Bass · Whalen v. United States · Bell v. United States · Coppedge v. United States · Davis v. Alaska
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Other courts, faced with interpretation of similar statutes which, like section 922(a)(6), preface the object of the offense with the word “any,” have concluded that no clear intent to impose cumulative punishment has been expressed by Congress. “Seemingly this is because ‘any* may be said to fully encompass (i.e., not necessarily exclude any part of) plural activity, and thus fails to unambiguously define the unit of prosecution in singular terms.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he mere existence of these two purposes does not permit us to affirm. We are not allowed to look for an intent that reasonably could be imputed to Congress, nor are we permitted to construe the Act in a way that we believe will best accomplish evident statutory purposes. Rather, when it comes to the imposition of harsh criminal penalties, we must look for “a clear indication that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments for a single transaction.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may be said to fully encompass (i.e., not necessarily exclude any part of) plural activity, and thus fails to unambiguously define the unit of prosecution in singular terms.'”
2 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.