Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 FRD 681 - Conant v. McCaffrey

Conant v. McCaffrey’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2016

2 district · 2 state decisions

60199720002010decided

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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 823 (§ 303 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 824 (§ 304 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320 (§ 1120 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1128 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 704

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Buckley v. Valeo · Elrod v. Burns · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux

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

  1. “defendants, their agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, from threatening or prosecuting physicians, [or] revoking their licenses ... based upon conduct relating to medical marijuana that does not rise to the level of a criminal offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “non-criminal activity related to those recommendations, such as providing a copy of a patient's medical chart to that patient or testifying in court regarding a recommendation that a patient use marijuana to treat an illness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “intentionally provide their patients with oral or written statements in order to enable them to obtain controlled substances in violation of federal law ... risk revocation of their DEA prescription authority.”
    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.