Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 981 F.2d 344 - United States v. Gullickson

United States v. Gullickson’s Empirical Analysis

981 F.2d 344 · 1992

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
September 2012
most recently cited

74 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably United States v. McCarthy (1996), United States v. Hascall (1996)

74 federal appellate ·

730199220002010decided

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. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 28 U.S.C. § 994

Relies on United States v. Menasche · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana · Youngberg v. United States

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

  1. “the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f the sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is less than the total punishment, then the sentence imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run consecutively, but only to the extent necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sentencing courts do not have discretion ... to ignore section 5G1.3(c),”
    3 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.