United States v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
887 F.3d 350 · 2018
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Sokolow · United States v. Arvizu · 134 S. Ct. 1240 - Rosemond v. United States · United States v. Farmer
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (COV), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). On appeal, Jones argues that the district court 1 erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on a government witness's response to his counsel's questioning. He also argues that the district court plainly erred in not granting a judgment of acquittal on the ground that his Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not a COV as defined in § 924(c). We affirm. I. Background”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“misled the jury or had a probable effect on the jury's verdict.”
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.