United States v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 228 · 1991
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson (2001), United States v. Cartwright (1993)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Taylor v. United States · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Congress clearly intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling [its] purpose broadly to keep firearms away from . . . persons . . . classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(а) It shall be unlawful — ... (б) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven if Chambers’ state indictment were ultimately held to be so invalid as to confer no jurisdiction whatever on the state court, its pretense to validity was nevertheless not so frivolous or transparent that Chambers could simply ignore it and notwithstanding its pendency engage in the self-help of acquiring a firearm. We believe that Congress, in section 922(n), intended that in such a situation firearms acquisitions be postponed until the validity of the indictment is determined.”
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.