United States v. Darnell’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 595 · 1976
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Carlson (1976), United States v. Warren (1980)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Benton v. Maryland · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Barnes v. United States · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · United States v. Romano
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The key to application or nonapplication of the rule lies as thus stated, in the discretion of the court. Sanders, supra. In the exercise of such discretion we consider the possibility of substantial prejudice that might flow from the presence on defendant’s record of a conviction appealed but not ruled upon, whether the matter comes to us on direct appeal or collateral attack, and whether the evidence on the unreviewed counts might have “spilled over” and influenced decision on the count ruled upon. The short of it is that, following the teaching of Benton [Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)], where we apply the rule, we apply it with caution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.