Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.3d 403 - United States v. Roach

United States v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.3d 403 · 1998

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Beckman (2000), United States v. Zimmer (2002)

70 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

5801998200020102020decided

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 Bourjaily v. United States · Parke v. Raley · Tanner v. United States · Williamson v. United States · Jusino v. Brown

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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The court may make a specific numeric determination of quantity based on imprecise evidence ... so long as the record reflects a basis for the court's decision.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[t]he trial court is entitled to estimate drug quantities where the amount actually seized fails to represent the scale of the offense if the preponderance of the evidence supports the quantities. The court may make a specific numeric determination of quantity based upon imprecise evidence, so long as the record reflects a basis for the court’s decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(1) that a conspiracy existed; (2) that the defendant and the declarant were members of the conspiracy; and (3) that the declaration was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.