United States v. Faust’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.3d 39 · 2017
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Taylor v. United States · Shepard v. United States · Oregon v. Elstad
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not turn on whether the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use violent force in committing the crime as a matter of historical fact, but on whether the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent force is required to satisfy one of the crime's elements.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“are the 'constituent parts' of a crime's legal definition -- the things the 'prosecution must prove to sustain a conviction.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“merely specifies diverse means of satisfying a single element of a single crime — or otherwise said, spells out various factual ways of committing some component of the offense — a jury need not find (or a defendant admit) any particular item.”
5 later decisions 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.