United States v. Mancillas’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.2d 1301 · 1978
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988), United States v. Xheka (1983)
153 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 3109 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Chimel v. California · Spinelli 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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although every drug deal involves an unlawful agreement to exchange drugs, ... a buyer-seller arrangement can't by itself be the basis of a conspiracy conviction because there is no common purpose: '[T]he buyer's purpose is to buy; the seller's purpose is to sell.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Once a conspiracy is shown to exist, evidence that establishes a particular defendant’s participation beyond a reasonable doubt, although the connection between defendant and conspiracy is slight, is sufficient to convict_ [M]ere association, knowledge or approval of a conspiracy is not sufficient to prove a defendant’s guilt. However, while “mere presence at the scene of the crime or mere association with conspirators will not themselves support a conspiracy conviction ... presence of a single act will suffice if the circumstances permit the inference that the presence or act was intended to advance the ends of the conspiracy.” ’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in some knowing way participated in the conspiracy.”
3 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.