United States v. Galloway’s Empirical Analysis
976 F.2d 414 · 1992
Citation profile
142 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably United States v. Watts (1997), United States v. Wise (1992)
142 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3521 (Witness Security Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 28 U.S.C. § 991
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so profound that it is sufficient to implicate due process concerns or to give the impression of having been tailored to permit the application of [a] cross-reference to be a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The open-ended language 'among others' invites the Commission to consider sentencing factors that Congress failed to specifically list.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Subsection (1) directs the Commission to promulgate guidelines that reflect the appropriateness of imposing an incremental penalty for each offense if a defendant is convicted of a number of offenses that are part of the same course of conduct, and if a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses committed at different times.... If no such incremental penalty were provided (e.g., were all sentences to be imposed without regard to the commission of other offenses and made to run concurrently), an offender who commits one offense would be faced with no deterrent to the commission of another during the interval before he is called to account for the first. It is the Committee’s intent that, to the extent feasible, the sentences for each of the multiple offenses be determined separately and the degree to which they should overlap be specified. Under this approach, if the conviction for one of the offenses is overturned, it will be unnecessary to recalculate the sentence. S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 176-77 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3182, 3359-60 (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.