United States v. Foree’s Empirical Analysis
43 F.3d 1572 · 1995
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably United States v. Jiminez (2000), United States v. Pielago (1998)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Illinois v. Gates · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Leon
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the Gates 1 totality of the circumstances test, the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ prongs ... for assessing the usefulness of an informant’s tips, are not independent. ‘[T]hey are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for ... by a strong showing as to the other[.]’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Marijuana plants have three characteristic components readily apparent to the unaided layperson’s eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant but a mere piece of some other plant. Accordingly, we hold that cuttings and seedlings are not “marihuana plants” within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party must demonstrate: (i) that there was error in the lower court's action, (ii) that such error was plain, clear, or obvious, and (ffl) that the error affected substantial rights, i.e. that it was prejudicial and not `harmless.'”
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.