Shuti v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
828 F.3d 440 · 2016
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Singleton v. Wulff · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Kolender v. Lawson · Padilla v. Kentucky
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nlike [ 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B)(ii) ] and [ 18 U.S.C. § 16 (b)], which require a categorical approach to stale predicate convictions, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) is a criminal offense that requires an ultimate determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — by a jury, in the same proceeding.” Shuti v. Lynch, No. 15-3835, 828 F.3d 440 , 449, 2016 WL 3632539 , at (6th Cir. July 7, 2016). However, the Taylor decision does not appear to distinguish 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) in this manner. See Taylor, 814 F.3d at 378 (”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“§ 924(c) is a criminal offense and 'creation of risk is an element of the crime,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“• The elements clause of § 924(c)(3) provides that an offense is a crime of violence if it is a felony and “has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(3)(A). • Mr. Johnson’s convictions for arson were pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 844 (f) which penalizes a person who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance.” Id. § 844(f).”
2 later decisions 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.