United States v. Camargo-Vergara’s Empirical Analysis
57 F.3d 993 · 1995
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Rodriguez De Varon (1999), The United States of America v. James Glenn Chastain Larry Gene Hopkins (1999)
20 federal appellate · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Pinkerton v. United States · Sloan v. Hicks · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ubstantial prejudice exists when a defendant is unduly surprised and lacks an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense, or if the mistake substantially influences the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court's determination of a defendant's role in an offense is a finding of fact subject to review only for clear error.”
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.