Owsley Stanley v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1990 · most notably Kelley v. Johnson (1976), United States v. Upshaw (1971)
16 federal appellate · 12 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 21 U.S.C. § 360A (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on United States v. Owsley Stanley, Robert W. Massey, William A. Spires and Robert D. Thomas
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“insofar as it seeks review of affirmance by the Court of Appeals of count 5 (possession count) of convictions of petitioners Stanley, Thomas, and Massey. Judgment as to these three individuals vacated insofar as that count is concerned and case remanded to the Court of Appeals so that it may consider suggestions contained in the memorandum the Solicitor General filed here. By this remand this Court intimates no view as to merits of the Solicitor General's position. In all other respects the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We distort the record when we treat the case as `possession' of a drug for purposes of manufacture. We deal with a drug after it was manufactured and held for sale. The charge of `possession' made in the indictment was therefore `possession' as defined in the 1965 Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was overwhelming that the possession was for purposes of sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.