United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.2d 754 · 1986
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998), United States v. Hawkins (1987)
80 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 21 U.S.C. § 849 (§ 409 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Turkette · Garrett v. United States · Roaden v. Kentucky · County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State · Shields v. Beto
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case of a person who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce any firearm and who has three previous convictions by any court referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection for robbery or burglary, or both, such person shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under this subsection, and such person shall not be eligible for parole with respect to the sentence imposed under this subsection.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Act lacks other common indicia of sentence-enhancement provisions. It does not derive its penalty as a multiplier of § 1202(a)(1). Also, unlike typical sentence-enhancement statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3575 (1982) and 21 U.S.C. § 849 (1982), for example, it is neither titled as a sentencing provision nor does it set out procedures for the sentencing hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“i) whether the statute “impose[s] an increased punishment for those convicted under another statutory provision”; ii) whether the statute’s penalty is simply a “multiplier” of another statute’s penalty provision; iii) whether the statute is titled as a “sentencing” or “penalty” provision; and iv) whether there are separate procedures for sentencing under the statute.”
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.