United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
51 F.3d 646 · 1995
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably United States v. Magana (1997), United States v. White (2007)
52 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 Ohio v. Roberts · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · California v. ARC America Corp. · Sowashee Venture v. EB, Inc.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In response to your Request for Written Summary of the Government’s Proposed Expert Testimony dated December 3, 1993, please be advised that Officers Emmit C. Carney, Jerry Cheung, and R.J. Kenney may testify at trial concerning the use of beepers, firearms, walkie-talkies, and Western Union wire transfers in connection with the sale of narcotics. In addition, each of these officers may testify that narcotics traffickers often secure locations such as houses or apartments to serve as a base for dealing narcotics. Each of these police officers will base their testimony on their years of training and experience in the area of drug investigations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'only if the government violated Rule 16 and the remedy offered by the district court was inadequate to provide him with a fair trial.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... The summary provided the defendants with both the grounds and the background for the testimony, enabling them to prepare for cross-examination. Other contexts, such as cases involving technical or scientific evidence, may require greater disclosure, including written and oral reports, tests, investigations, and any other information that may be recognized as a legitimate basis for an opinion under Fed. R.Evid. 703. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E) advisory committee note.”
2 later decisions 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.