United States v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 412 · 1995
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2011
17 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Frady · Sawyer v. Whitley · Kaufman v. United States · Hiatt v. Indiana State Student Assistance Commission · Block v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even if [McGee's] present argument were the kind of fundamental error cognizable on collateral attack, instead of a garden-variety question of fact of the sort that will occur in almost every drug-offense sentencing, his procedural default would prevent us from reaching the argument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If we were to accept this argument, every issue of fact material to a guidelines sentence ... could be litigated or relitigated on collateral attack. We reject this proposition. Justice does not require it.”
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.