Abuelhawa v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), Commonwealth v. Vasquez (2010)
48 federal appellate · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Abuelhawa (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. · Dolan v. United States Postal Service · Gebardi v. United States · United States v. Martin
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To begin with, the Government's literal sweep of 'facilitate' sits uncomfortably with common usage. Where a transaction like a sale necessarily presupposes two parties with specific roles, it would be odd to speak of one party as facilitating the conduct of the other.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“statutes are not read as a collection of isolated phrases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To the contrary, Congress used no language spelling out a purpose so improbable, but legislated against a background usage of terms such as 'aid,' 'abet,' and 'assist' that points in the opposite direction and accords with the CSA's choice to classify small purchases as misdemeanors.”
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.