United States v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 252 · 1977
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Jones (1995), United States v. McGlory (1992)
74 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Partin · United States v. De Cavalcante · United States v. Cohen
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[t]he evidence does not need to be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt if it does establish a case from which the jury can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is no evidence that he knew what was padlocked in the rear compartment and no evidence that illegal plans were discussed during the telephone calls to his home ... in the absence of some evidence that he knew of the contents of the locked compartment or some evidence that he engaged in telephone or other communication of a conspiratorial nature, no factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that [appellant] was a member of [the] conspiracy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Tjhere is ample circumstantial evidence in this case from which the jury could have concluded that [appellant] was involved in a conspiracy with co-defendants ... and that the conspiracy involved the movement of cargo in the truck.... What is missing is any evidence that [appellant] knew that a controlled substance was couched behind the doors of the Ryder truck. That knowledge is an essential element of the conspiracy charged. Without it the conviction must fail. As we recently stated, “there must be evidence tending to prove that defendant entered into an agreement and had the specific unlawful purpose charged in the indictment.””
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.