United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Griffin v. California · Anderson v. United States · Attwood v. Singletary · Libretti v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... how much things have changed since opening. What was it that Mr. Wartel told you in his opening statement? Mr. Wartel told you in his opening statement that the evidence would show that Michael Davis was not guilty. Do you remember when he said that to you? You are allowed to scrutinize claims that the defense makes the same way that you scrutinize claims the government makes. And there was no evidence that supported Mr. Wartel when he made that claim. What was the evidence supposed to be through the one guy that he called that was his employer, that talked about the per diem?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fed.R.Crim.P. 82.2(b)(4) provides that: Upon a party’s request in a case in which the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the jury must determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense committed by the defendant.”
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.