Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 195 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Archer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Archer Anchor | green | “a prior panel's holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the supreme court or by this court sitting en banc.” | 73 |
| 2 | United States v. Archer | green | “unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the supreme court or by this court sitting en banc.” | 20 |
| 3 | United States v. William O. Steele, Cross-Appellee | green | “under our prior precedent rule, a panel cannot overrule a prior one's holding even though convinced it is wrong.” | 20 |
| 4 | United States v. Kaley | green | “actually abrogate or directly conflict with, as opposed to merely weaken, the holding of the prior panel.” | 18 |
| 5 | United States v. Kaley | green | “to constitute an overruling for the purposes of this prior panel precedent rule, the supreme court decision must be clearly on point.” | 11 |
| 6 | United States v. Rozier | green | “even if a felon possesses a firearm purely for self-defense.” | 9 |
| 7 | United States v. Derwin Fritts | green | “under this court's prior panel precedent rule, there is never an exception carved out for overlooked or misinterpreted supreme court precedent.” | 6 |
| 8 | United States v. Geovanni Quintero Rendon | green | “this circuit and other circuits have not embellished the mdlea with a nexus requirement.” | 5 |
| 9 | United States v. Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano | green | “we review de novo a district court's interpretation of a statute and whether a statute is constitutional.” | 4 |
| 10 | United States v. Andre Michael Dubois | green | “did not cast doubt on felon-in-possession prohibitions” | 4 |
| 11 | United States v. Travis Lamont Smith | green | “an element of mens rea with respect to the illicit nature of the controlled substance.” | 3 |
| 12 | United States v. Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano | green | “the mdlea is a valid exercise of congress's power under the felonies clause as applied to drug trafficking crimes without a 'nexus' to the united states.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.