United States v. McWilliams’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.2d 1218 · 1984
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Benny (1986), United States v. Buffington (1987)
34 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1510 · 18 U.S.C. § 845 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Brady v. United States · McCarthy v. United States · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Lewis 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he provisions of Rule 11 ... were adopted by the Supreme Court as the measure of the validity of a guilty plea in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o sustain such [a] claim, the defendant must show vindictiveness on the part of those who made the charging decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to undermine the authority of Liles and to support the proposition that Ninth Circuit law in 1975 permitted a convicted felon to collaterally attack a constitutionally infirm conviction in the course of a federal firearms prosecution seems to me misplaced. In fact, the McHenry court considered a violation of California’s firearms statute and read Liles as an opinion interpreting Congressional intent in enacting the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 — the statute at issue here. McHenry does nothing to contradict Liles’ interpretation of that statute: that Congress intended that no one under taint of a felony conviction be permitted to possess a weapon, regardless of the status of that conviction. I am unwilling to read McHenry as authority for the proposition that Congress is constitutionally disabled from enacting such a statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.