United States v. Wokkopich’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.2d 1142 · 1973
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably United States v. Coady (1987), United States v. Brunty (1983)
57 federal appellate · 7 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. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Russell · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Masciale v. United States · Pierce 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[D]eliver” or “delivery” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer [of a controlled substance] from one person to another ... whether or not there is an agency relationship [between these persons].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, unlike Bueno where the government supplied contraband, the government here supplied a commodity legal in itself, United States currency. Furthermore, whereas in Bueno the defendant was merely the conduit between two government employees, here the defendant actually arranged the purchase from one illegally dealing in heroin. Subsequent to the briefs and argument in this case, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , 93 S.Ct. 1637 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 , 1973. There a government agent approached the defendant and offered to supply him with a chemical essential to the illegal manufacture of amphetamines. This ingredient was legal in itself to possess, in contrast to the contraband supplied in Bueno."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance;”
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.