Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 911 F.2d 361 - United States v. Cunningham

United States v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

911 F.2d 361 · 1990

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
June 2007
most recently cited

13 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Taylor v. United States · Carter v. Nesby · United States v. Chatman · United States v. Cunningham

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 164.215(1). Despite the clear holding of Cunningham, Hensley makes three separate arguments urging that Oregon's second-degree burglary statute does not meet the Taylor standard. First, Hensley contends that because Oregon sentencing guidelines do not classify second-degree burglary as a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “definition. 911 F.2d at 363 . Under Oregon law a person commits burglary in the second degree if he or she”
    2 later decisions 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.