United States v. De Jesus’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 21 · 1993
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Rutherford (1995), United States v. Gosling (1994)
64 federal appellate · 12 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Taylor v. United States · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Hughey v. United States · United States v. Harotunian · United States v. Doe
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a serious potential risk of physical injury.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not the breadth of the statutory sweep but the degree of risk, expressed in terms of the probability of physical harm presented by the mine-run of conduct that falls within the heartland of the statute. Applying this test in the post- Taylor era, we have repeatedly classified as crimes of violence offenses in which actual or threatened force against another person is likely, although by no means certain.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under Wisconsin law is not a crime of violence as a matter of law, and can only qualify as such if there are sufficient facts in the indictment to indicate that a serious threat of violence occurred). The elements of the offense in each one of these states were substantially the same. We find persuasive the reasoning of those circuits holding that larceny from the person is a crime of violence. 18 We think larceny from the person is a crime that creates a substantial risk of physical harm to another. As explained above, Michigan law interprets”
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.