Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 F.3d 281 - United States v. Cartwright

United States v. Cartwright’s Empirical Analysis

359 F.3d 281 · 2004

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
January 2019
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Burks v. United States · United States v. Ortiz · United States v. Dent · United States v. Blackston · United States v. Pearlstein

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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “review[ ] the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and must credit all available inferences in favor of the government.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) [The defendant] made his first appearance in the breezeway at the same time that [the coconspirator] was observed carrying the shopping bag containing the cocaine; (2) [the defendant] walked side-by-side with [the coconspirator] through the breezeway and the two were observed talking to each other; (3) [the defendant] possessed a semi-automatic firearm, a cellular phone, $180 in cash, and a Motorola Timeport two-way text messaging device; and (4) [the defendant] did not possess any keys to a vehicle of his own.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even in situations where the defendant knew he was engaged in illicit activity, and knew that “some form of contraband” was involved in the scheme in which he was participating, the government is obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the particular illegal objective contemplated by the conspiracy.”
    2 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.