Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 935 F.2d 644 - United States v. John

United States v. John’s Empirical Analysis

935 F.2d 644 · 1991

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
December 2022
most recently cited

20 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Madera-Gallegos (1991), United States v. Alpert (1994)

20 federal appellate ·

1901991200020102020decided

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. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Dole v. United Steelworkers · Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc. · United States v. Stroud · United States v. Franco-Torres · United States v. Porter

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

  1. “[E]ndangering others during flight or in the course of resisting arrest involves active, willful behavior; in contrast, mere flight or disagreeableness during an encounter involves more passive or instinctive conduct.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Dennings' conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury as required for § 3C1.2 to apply.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant’s offense of conviction ... increase the offense level by 2 levels.”
    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.