Case Citator › United States v. Brian L. Miller, United States of America v. Michael Ray Hicks

United States v. Brian L. Miller, United States of America v. Michael Ray Hicks

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
84 F.3d 1244
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Miller was overruled in part by United States v. Holland. Holland rejected Miller's conclusion that an erroneous firearm “use” instruction required reversal when the jury's verdict necessarily established every element of “carrying.” Miller's separate rule that knowing firearm transportation and possession can establish carrying remained in use.
More on how this was screened

All 42 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

42 later cases cite United States v. Brian L. Miller, United States of America v. Michael Ray Hicks; 42 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Brian L. Miller, United States of America v. Michael Ray Hicks?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Tenth Circuit, with its en banc court's agreement, overruled Miller's rule requiring reversal for an erroneous firearm “use” instruction even when the verdict necessarily established “carrying.”

    United States v. Holland · Tenth Circuit · filed

    The result in DeSantiago-Flores and Miller would therefore be different under the analysis we use here. We have circulated this footnote to the en banc court, which has unanimously agreed that to the extent any of our earlier cases can be viewed as inconsistent with our holding here, they are overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Brian L. Miller, United States of America v. Michael Ray Hicks and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace