United States v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
289 F.3d 1321 · 2002
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Baker (2005), United States v. Tinoco (2002)
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Chapman v. State of California · Neder v. United States · United States v. Calderon · United States v. Nealy
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.
“Simply put, the failure to charge or submit to the jury a specific drug quantity is harmless error under Apprendi if, by finding the defendant guilty, the jury necessarily must have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a certain quantity of drugs was involved in the offense. Put differently, if no reasonable juror could have found the defendant guilty without also finding that the specific quantity of drugs was involved, then the defendant is not entitled to a resentenc-ing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“review de novo ... the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Candelario, 240 F.3d at 1307 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 91 In the context of drug quantity,”
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.