United States v. Klecker’s Empirical Analysis
348 F.3d 69 · 2003
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 2298 - McFadden v. United States (2015), United States v. Turcotte (2005)
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 813 (§ 203 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 859 (§ 418 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kolender v. Lawson · Costello v. United States · United States of America v. Juan Martinez · Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States · City of Santa Ana v. Hernandez
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to show an Analogue Act violation, the Government must prove (1) substantial chemical similarity between the alleged analogue and a controlled substance; see 21 U.S.C. § 802 (32)(A)(i); (2) actual, intended, or claimed physiological similarity (in other words, that the alleged analogue has effects similar to those of a controlled substance or that the defendant intended or represented that the substance would have such effects), see id. § 802(32)(A)(ii), (ni); and (3) intent that the substance be consumed by humans, see id. § 813. The intent requirement alone tends to defeat any vagueness challenge based on the potential for arbitrary enforcement.”
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.