United States v. McQuilkin’s Empirical Analysis
97 F.3d 723 · 1996
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. LaBonte (1997), United States v. Nolan-Cooper (1998)
42 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Stinson v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e lack jurisdiction to review a refusal to depart downward when the district court, knowing it may do so, nonetheless determines that departure is not warranted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] discretionary decision by the trial judge that a departure is not justified is not reviewable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At sentencing, the district court found McQuilkin’s condition was “not that type of an impairment so severe and complete that the downward departure [was] ... warranted.” The court’s determination that McQuilkin did not have the kind of impairment described in § 5H1.4 which “warrants” a departure, could have meant one of two things: that McQuilkin’s impairment was not. extraordinary enough to allow the court to depart under the -authority of § 5H14; or that the nature of the impairment was sufficiently extraordinary to allow the court to depart, but that the court' elected not to depart on this occasion. We believe the court meant the former, in which case, we revieiO'this finding for clear error.”
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.