Thor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.2d 759 · 1977
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2023
7 federal appellate · 2 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. § 3231 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 811 (§ 201 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Infelice v. United States · Reamer v. Beall · Barnett v. United States · United States v. Bass
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen one examines the Act’s overall scheme with respect to the content of the controlled substances schedules, then the purpose of section 812(a)’s republication requirement becomes clear. The Congress was aware of the possibility that the schedules could be substantially restructured as a result of the delegation of amendment authority to the Attorney General. Consequently, a periodic, updated compilation of the content of the schedules was provided for in order to ensure a public awareness of any alterations. As we construe the Act, this was all that section 812(a) was intended to do.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurisdictional defects are always subject to attack under section 2255, as that statute expressly states.”
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.