Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 F.3d 574 - United States v. Vasquez

United States v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis

82 F.3d 574 · 1996

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Doyle (1997), United States v. Serrano-Lopez (2004)

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1801996200020102020decided

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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Pelaes v. United States · Lawrence v. United States · Yates v. Evatt · Mayers 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A conviction will not be overturned for refusal to give a requested charge, however, unless that instruction is legally correct, represents a theory of defense with basis in the record that would lead to acquittal, and the theory is not effectively presented elsewhere in the charge.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he person who’s knowingly in possession, his possession occurs voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident. The defendant simply may not be convicted of possession of a firearm if he did not intend to possess it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Even when we find that a court has improperly limited cross-examination, we should not reverse if we conclude that the error was harmless, or unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.”
    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.