United States v. Spain’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 170 · 1976
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 19 - People v. Baptist (1979), 153 Wis. 2d 121 - State v. Johnson (1990)
61 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Berger v. United States · United States v. Russell · Lewis v. United States · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing we have said is intended to discourage a prosecutor from vigorous argument or frank comment on the evidence or the character of a witness. The line between the ‘undignified and intemperate’ . . . and the ‘hard’ ... or ‘harsh’ . . . but fair, is not susceptible of ready definition. It can only be located through a sense of fitness and taste and an appreciation of the prosecutor’s proper role .... Those who cannot discern that line with confidence had best stay a safe distance away from it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since irreconcilable conflicts in the evidence could not have been the result of honest mistake, each counsel was of course entitled to argue that witnesses called by him had spoken the truth and those called by the other side had testified falsely. There was no other way to argue the case effectively.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Entrapment is established as a matter of law only when the absence of predisposition appears from uncontradicted evidence. In the case at bar the evidence bearing on the issue of predisposition was in conflict, and that issue was therefore properly submitted to the jury. The evidence from which the jury could properly have found predisposition included defendant's ready response to the solicitation . . . . The defense of entrapment was properly submitted to the jury, and the jury was justified in rejecting the defense.”
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.