United States v. Turk’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 309 · 1994
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Yagow v. United States · Kuntz v. City of Dayton · Kahn v. Grant · Maryland v. Craig · Maryland v. Craig
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that Smith was not involved, but he guessed the court did not believe him and he did not understand why. 23 A district court abuses its discretion by refusing to grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence only if it is clear that the evidence is in fact newly discovered and that due diligence was exercised in discovering it; and that the evidence is relevant to a material issue, not cumulative or impeaching, and”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the existence of new evidence, (2) due diligence, (3) the relevance of the evidence to a material issue, (4) the probability that evidence would lead to an acquittal on retrial, and (5) that the evidence 'is not merely cumulative or impeaching.'”
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.