United States v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.3d 708 · 2017
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 16 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on United States v. Dunnigan · 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States · United States v. Nelson · United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria · United States v. Stokley
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In [Johnson ] the Supreme Court held that a somewhat similar provision, the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e), was unconstitutionally vague. However, our Court subsequently held that 18 U.S.C. § 16 (b), which contains wording almost identical to that of § 924(c)(3)(B), is not unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 674-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). To preserve this issue for further review, Garcia argues that Gonzalez-Longoria was wrongly decided. But because Garcia concedes that Gonzalez-Longoria is controlling, we affirm his conviction under § 924(c).”
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.