United States v. Mathurin’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 68 · 1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2021
1 federal appellate ·
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. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · Oregon v. Elstad · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co. · Kamen v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an attempt to give a detailed recitation of what did happen, without 12 a conclusory denial, may well leave a negative pregnant,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“it 10 is ordinarily impossible to state all of the facts that show that an event never 11 occurred,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.