United States v. Coffman’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 960 · 1977
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Phillips (1995), Tapia v. Tansy (1991)
15 federal appellate · 7 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Hampton v. United States · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · Henry v. Mississippi · American Tobacco Co. v. Green
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The legislative history of 21 U.S.C.A. § 1175 and the expository sections of the regulations make it clear that neither Congress nor the Secretary intended that hospitals administering the methadone treatment program should become sanctuaries for drug abusers who violate the law while enrolled in the program.” 567 F.2d at 962 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n element of reasoned choice yet exists when an addict knowingly violates the law in acquiring and using drugs. One is not excused for offending simply because he wanted to very, very badly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) Definitions. As used in this section. § 2.19-1, and §§ 2.67 and 2.67-1, — “(1) The term ‘undercover agent’ means a member of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement or investigative agency whose identity as such is concealed from either the patients or personnel of a program in which he enrolls or attempts to enroll. “(2) The term ‘informant’ means a person who, at the request of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement or investigative agency or officer, carries on observation of one or more persons enrolled in or employed by a program in which he is enrolled or employed, for the purpose of reporting to such agency or officer information concerning such persons which he obtains as a result of such observation subsequent to such request. “(b) General prohibition. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section, or as specifically authorized by a court order granted under § 2.67 — “(1) No undercover agent or informant may be employed by or enrolled in any alcohol or drug abuse treatment program; “(2) No supervisor or other person having authority over an undercover agent may knowingly permit such agent to be or remain employed by or enrolled in any such program; and “(3) No law enforcement or investigative officer may recruit or retain an informant with respect to such a program. “(c) Exceptions. The enrollment of a law enforcement officer in a treatment program shall not be deemed a violation of this section if (1) such enrollment is solely for the p”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.