United States v. Randolph’s Empirical Analysis
93 F.3d 656 · 1996
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Holloway v. United States (1999), United States of America v. Betty Louise Marek (2001)
28 federal appellate · 3 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. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 3631
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Lopez · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Granito v. United States · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, possessing a firearm as defined in section 921 of this title, takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall— (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence that the defendant intended to use a gun to frighten the victims is not sufficient in and of itself to prove an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. It is, however, one of the facts you may consider in determining whether the government has met its burden. You may also consider the fact that no victim was actually killed or seriously injured when you consider the evidence or lack of evidence as to the defendant’s intent. In some eases, intent is conditional. That is, a defendant may intend to engage in certain conduct only if a certain event occurs. In this case, the government contends that the defendant intended to cause death or serious bodily harm if the alleged victims had refused to turn over their cars. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had such an intent, the government has satisfied this element of the offense. If you find that the co-defendant, Vernon Lennon, acted with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, that is not sufficient. You must find that the defendant shared in that intent before you can conclude that this element has been satisfied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘she would be okay' if she '[did] what was told of her.' ” Id. The Ninth Circuit held that”
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.