Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.3d 1371 - United States v. Willis

United States v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis

89 F.3d 1371 · 1996

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Muscarello v. United States (1998), United States v. Beasley (1996)

69 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

6301996200020102020decided

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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 842 (§ 402 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Burks v. United States · Bailey v. United States · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the evidence was in fact discovered after trial; (2) the failure to discover the evidence was not attributable to a lack of diligence by the movant; (3) the evidence would not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence would likely produce an acquittal if a new trial were granted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and that the case should be remanded for new trial on that count because the reversal is based on trial error and not insufficiency of the evidence. We agree. The indictment alleged appellant violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) by”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he ordinary meaning of the word 'carry' includes transporting firearms in the passenger compartment of a car loaded with drugs.”
    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.