United States v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
127 F.3d 9 · 1997
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2025
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 953 · 21 U.S.C. § 959
Relies on United States v. Lanier · Ladner v. United States · United States v. Kozminski · United States v. O'Neil · United States v. Rose
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he rule of lenity commands that genuine ambiguities affecting a criminal statute’s scope be resolved in the defendant’s favor. The important purposes served by the rule of lenity include the following: "to promote fair notice to those subject to the criminal laws, to minimize the risk of selective or arbitrary enforcement, and to maintain the proper balance between Congress, prosecutors, and courts.””
2 later decisions 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.