United States v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.3d 607 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Medical Center Pharmacy v. Holder (2011), Trammell v. Fruge (2017)
12 federal appellate ·
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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Lee · United States v. Whren · United States v. Huerta · United States of America v. Mark Ervin Thibodeaux · United States v. Lewis
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a well worn principle that the failure to raise an issue on appeal constitutes waiver of that argument.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fit squarely within the waiver doctrine .... Neither defendant has demonstrated why he was unable to appeal his issue in the initial appeal. Each did appeal the leadership enhancements, which we reversed. It does not follow that because they appealed one aspect of the sentence, they preserved every other objection for review on remand. In fact, because they had already objected in the district court on those very grounds, they had every incentive and opportunity to appeal the sentence on those grounds as well. Because they did not, the arguments are waived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“issues not arising out of this court’s ruling and not raised in the appeals court, which could have been brought in the original appeal, are not proper for reconsideration by the district court below”); United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321, 323 (5th Cir.2004) (explaining that the mandate rule”
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.