Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 1169 - United States v. Marshall

United States v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 1169 · 1973

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Briscoe v. W (1983), 25 Cal. 3d 142 - People v. Frierson (1979)

50 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states

56019731980199020002010decided

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)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Glasser v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Johnson 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(B)reaks down in the face of the fact that most criminal defendants who can retain counsel are not in any position to judge the competence of the lawyer whom they hire. They have to take him on faith — in reliance on the fact that he has been admitted to practice. Unfortunately, that fact does not guarantee that he is competent to defend criminal case. Most of the recent cases have held that competence of counsel is to be judged by the same standard, whether counsel be appointed or retained.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “These appeals present a distressing picture of the notions of the agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs of the Department of Justice who were involved in the case about the manner in which they are to perform their duties and their obligations toward citizens under the Constitution, and about their behavior toward the citizens with whom they become involved. We hope that the agents who testified in this case are not typical agents of the Bureau. If they are, we wonder what sort of training the Bureau gives its agents. 1”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “only possible defense was that he was an innocent victim who was asked by Burkle to drive but did not know anything about illegal activities,”
    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.