United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 628 · 1995
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Lang (1996), United States v. Reece (1996)
21 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Holland v. United States · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Brewster v. Derwinski · Scherl v. Fisher
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The line between a reasonable inference that may permissibly be drawn by a jury from basic facts in evidence and an impermissible speculation is not drawn by judicial idiosyncrasies. The line is drawn by the laws of logic. If there is an experience of logical probability that an ultimate fact will follow from a stated narrative or historical fact, then the jury is given the opportunity to draw a conclusion because there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the proven facts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Constructive possession may be found if a person knowingly has ownership, dominion or control over the narcotics and the premises where the narcotics are found.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), the government may prove defendants either used or carried the firearm. The use requirement is satisfied if defendants had “ready access” to the firearm and it was an “integral part” of their drug trafficking. United States v. Ross, 920 F.2d 1530, 1536 (10th Cir.1990). This court has held that the requirement was met when a gun was kept at home where drugs were distributed. United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1402-03 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 925 , 111 S.Ct. 2033 , 114 L.Ed.2d 118 (1991). Similarly, in a case where a defendant was arrested in his car with drugs and other indications of drug selling nearby and a gun was found underneath the driver’s seat where he sat, we held the government established use.”
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.