United States v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 152 · 1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2010
7 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1791 · 18 U.S.C. § 1792
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Lorillard v. Pons · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress intended the crime defined by that provision to incorporate a mens rea element of knowing or intentional possession, as distinguished from intent to use an object as a weapon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The legislative history indicates that, [while] § 1791(a) was adopted in order to cure a defect ... whereby the possession by an inmate at a Federal penal or correctional institution of a weapon or similar substance or object designed to kill, injure or disable another was not a crime,” § 1791 was not intended to otherwise replace the existing statute pertaining to prison contraband which”
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.