United States v. Ginyard’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.3d 203 · 2008
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · North Carolina v. Pearce · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be retried on lesser-included charges of that count without transgressing die bar against double jeopardy”); Shute v. Texas, 117 F.3d 233, 235 (5th Cir.1997) (double jeopardy did not bar prosecution for a lesser included offense”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re L.L. · In Re LL“[T]he very nature of a double jeopardy claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from the principal issue at the accused’s impending criminal trial, i.e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars his prosecution, the defendant makes no challenge whatsoever to the merits of the charge against him. Nor does he seek suppression of evidence which the Government plans to use in obtaining a conviction. Rather, he is contesting the very authority of the Government to hale him into court to face trial on the charge against him.”
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.