Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 730 - United States v. Snow

United States v. Snow’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 730 · 1975

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
5
states following
May 1992
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently May 1992 · most notably United States v. Pheaster (1976), United States v. Carlson (1976)

83 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

520197519801990decided

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. § 5010 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Dutton v. Evans · Barber v. Page · United States v. Feola · Cruz v. Hauck

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) [T]he declaration contained no assertion of a past fact, and consequently carried a warning to the jury against giving it undue weight; (2) the declarant had personal knowledge of the identity and role of participants in the crime; (3) the possibility that the declarant was relying upon faulty recollection was remote; and (4) the circumstances under which the statements were made did not provide reason to believe that the declarant had misrepresented the defendant’s involvement in the crime.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declarant for cross-examination deprived the jury of a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the extrajudicial declaration.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a foundation (must be) laid to show that: (1) the declaration was in furtherance of the conspiracy, (2) it was made during the pendency of the conspiracy, and (3) there is independent proof of the existence of the conspiracy and of the connection of the declarant and the defendant to it. United States v. Snow, 521 F.2d 730 , 733 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1090, 96 S.Ct. 883, 47 L.Ed.2d 101 (1976).”
    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.