United States v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1561 · 1994
Citation profile
36 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 1998-2 City of Tuscaloosa (1998), United States v. Thompson (2005)
36 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 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. § 455
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Bourjaily v. United States · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Doerr v. Doerr · Granito 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]lcohol is not a controlled substance, and the illegality of its production is distinct in both fact and law from that involved in growing and selling marijuana.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish the affirmative defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy, the defendant has the substantial burden of proving: (1) that he has taken affirmative steps, inconsistent with the objectives of the conspiracy, to disavow or to defeat the objectives of the conspiracy; and (2) that he made a reasonable effort to communicate those acts to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to law enforcement authorities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For a declaration by one defendant to be admissible against other defendants ..., the [plaintiffs] must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the defendant and the declarant were members of the conspiracy, and (3) that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
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.