United States v. Raven’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 428 · 1994
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably United States v. Gibbs (1999), United States v. Hardwell (1996)
27 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 960 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Chapman v. United States · United States v. Brooks · United States v. McDowell · United States v. Gessa · United States v. Barnes
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“outrageous official conduct [that] overcomes the will of an individual predisposed only to dealing in small quantities for the purpose of increasing the amount of drugs ... and the resulting sentence of the entrapped defendant.” '”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an offense involving negotiation to traffic in a controlled substance, the weight under negotiation in an uncompleted distribution is used to calculate that amount. However, where the court finds that the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated amount, the court shall exclude from the guideline calculation the amount that it finds the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defendant who wishes to be found responsible for a lesser amount of drugs must come forward with evidence supporting the proposition that he or she lacked both the intent and the reasonable capability to produce the drugs in question.... In order to meet this burden of production, the defendant may cast a different light on the government’s evidence, elicit evidence of his or her own during cross examination of any witnesses offered by the government, or present other evidence suggesting lack of intent and lack of reasonable capability-”
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.