DeLeon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2018
21 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 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bifulco v. United States · Ladner v. United States · Gargliano v. State · 53 Md. App. 171 - Walker v. State · Williams v. State
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““that when a sentencing provision such as § 290 states that the punishment for an inchoate crime shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for the target crime, such a provision contemplates the ordinary maximum available for all who perpetrate the target crime and does not incorporate the enhanced penalty provisions available only for certain of those perpetrators.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nichols v. State · Johnson v. State““The punishment cf every person convicted of the crime of conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for the offense he or she conspired to commit.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gary v. State · Johnson v. State“In a very fundamental sense, neither [of the conspiracy statutes limiting punishment to the maximum penalty for the target offense] do anything to the possible sentence for conspiracy other than impose a ceiling on the trial judge’s otherwise open-ended common law sentencing discretion. The conspiracy sentencing provisions and the substantive crime sentencing provisions are linked only at their upper ends, not at their lower ends. To legislate as to the ceiling is not to legislate as to the floor. A sentencing provision that provides only that a sentence “may not exceed the maximum” provided for something else clearly does not incorporate any minimum or mandatory provisions provided for that something else.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.