United States v. Hussein’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 811 (§ 201 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 44 U.S.C. § 1507
Relies on Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Smith v. Goguen
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hussein knew that [1] he and many others were picking up packages of khat ... for Gani Mohamed ... [2] Mohamed used the names and addresses of individuals all over Lewiston and Portland for shipment ... [3] Mohamed had given him only a tracking number for the packages he was to pick up ... [4] Mohamed asked him to pick up the parcel even though ... Mohamed was going to be in Portland himself ... [5] Mohamed paid him in khat ... [6] Mohamed sold the khat for $6-8 a bundle ... [7] neither ... Mohamed’s name nor Hussein’s name was listed as addressee on [the parcel] ... [8] the label falsely listed the contents as documents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.