Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 F.3d 116 - United States v. Alexander

United States v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

331 F.3d 116 · 2003

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
5
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 18 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Saucier (2007), United States v. Arnold (2007)

59 federal appellate · 18 district · 5 state decisions

680200320102020decided

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

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Johnson v. United States · Huddleston v. United States · Lockhart v. Nelson · Bunce 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]nvolving has expansive connotations ... encompassing ... offenses that are related to or connected with [distributing, manufacturing, or possessing.]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an entire class of state offenses `involving' certain activities, namely `manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute' a controlled substance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.”
    3 later decisions 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.