United States v. Karlic’s Empirical Analysis
997 F.2d 564 · 1993
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. Pappadopoulos (1995), United States v. Meling (1995)
44 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Leary v. United States · Whalen v. United States · Albernaz 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and (ii) if the element involves a result of Ms conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hoever ... uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States ... shall ... be sentenced to imprisonment for five years....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce,”
2 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.