Narvaez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
641 F.3d 877 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Teague v. Lane · Bailey v. United States · United States v. Tucker · Gardner v. Florida
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sun Bear cannot demonstrate the application of the career offender enhancement resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice.” That is a cognizability argument. 8 . The en banc court recently reversed the panel opinion on other grounds, declining to consider the issue we address —”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would be inappropriate to treat identical texts differently just because of a different caption.”
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.