United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 71 · 1989
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Orozco-Santillan (1990), United States v. Streit (1992)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 115 · 18 U.S.C. § 876
Relies on James v. United States · Utica Mutual Insurance v. Talley · Ohio v. Fleet Aerospace Corp. · United States v. Fleishman · United States v. Crespo de Llano
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Davis also argues that ... the government failed to establish that Davis “reasonably anticipated that threatening two judges would get him released from prison.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 4. Section 876 requires no such showing. “The only proof of specific intent required to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 876 is that the defendant knowingly deposits a threatening letter in the mails, not that he intended or was able to carry out the threat.” United States v. Chatman, 584 F.2d 1358 , 1361 (4th Cir.1978). Accord United States v. Sirhan, 504 F.2d 818 , 819 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (section 876 merely requires proof that (1) defendant wrote or mailed a letter containing a threat to injure a person and (2) knowingly caused the letter to be deposited in the mails).”
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.