Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.2d 638 - United States v. Thomas

United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.2d 638 · 1978

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
1
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

76 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. Santiago (1978), United States v. Michel (1979)

76 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

39019781980199020002010decided

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. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963

Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Russell · Hampton v. United States · Nash v. United States · Singer 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If two or more persons conspire ... to commit any offense against the United States ., and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an abundance of evidence from which a jury could believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants did indeed unlawfully conspire, although they may have taken no action to execute the conspiracy.”
    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.