Williams v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis
2020
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on North Carolina v. Alford · Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez · Moncrieffe v. Holder · State v. Lutters · State v. Hopes
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the state, through plain statutory language, has defined the reach of a state statute to include conduct that the federal offense does not, the categorical analysis is complete; there is no categorical match.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 'realistic probability test' . . . has no role to play in the categorical analysis . . . when the state statute of conviction on its face reaches beyond the generic federal definition.”
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.