United States v. Bockius’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 1193 · 1977
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably United States v. Andrus (1985), Heriberto Navarro-Camacho, v. United States of America (1999)
33 federal appellate · 8 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. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on United States v. Cook · United States v. Padrone · United States v. Russo · Hansen v. United States · United States v. Saitta
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The following are controlled dangerous substances and are included in this schedule: a. Any of the following substances except those narcotic drugs listed in other schedules whether produced directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of vegetable origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by combination of extraction and chemical synthesis: 1. ... coca leaves ...; 2. Any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of ... coca leaves ...; 3. Any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of the substances referred to in clauses 1 and 2, except that these substances shall not include decocainized coca leaves or extraction of coca leaves, which extractions do not contain cocaine or ecgonine____””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Assistant United States Attorney handling the case was wise enough to confer with a United States Attorney in another office who had faced Shellow before. He learned that Shellow’s trial strategy was to show that the Government had not met its burden of proof. This Shellow did by impeaching government testing procedures. His tactic was to contend that to identify L-cocaine, the government scientists should conduct a polarimeter test. Until acquiring this information, the United States Attorney in the case had not requested the government expert, Donald A. Cooper, to conduct a polarimeter test. The United States Attorney asked him to do so, but had not received the results of this belated test when he began to present his case. Nor did he know about the results during direct examination. The expert Cooper relied upon other tests to establish that the substance in question was L-cocaine. Shellow, during cross-examination, asked Cooper if he had conducted the polarimeter test. Cooper answered affirmatively and stated that the substance taken from Bockius’s shoes was L-cocaine.” (Footnotes omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There was much throwing about of brains. Defense counsel exhibited models of the molecular structure of cocaine isomers and skillfully extracted from his expert and the government expert as much or more knowledge of the cocaine isomers than a jury could absorb.””
2 later decisions 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.