United States v. Knuckles’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 305 · 1978
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 182 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Shabani (1994), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)
125 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Berger v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Krulewitch 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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“before the spoils are divided among the miscreants”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he only variance alleged by the appellants is the exact nature of the substance involved, heroin or cocaine; the time, place, people, and object proved at trial are in all respects those alleged in Count Two of the indictment. Whether the substance was cocaine or heroin makes no difference under 21 U.S.C. § 841 , the statute cited in Count Two of the indictment. Such a variance, affecting neither the Government's case nor the sentence imposed,[ [6] ] cannot have prejudiced the ability of the defendants to make their defense to the charge that they violated 21 U.S.C. § 841 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meek v. State · State v. Bell“*111 [t]he general rule that allegations and proof must correspond is based upon the obvious requirements (1) that the accused shall be definitely informed as to the charges against him, so that he may be enabled to present his defense and not be taken by surprise by the evidence offered at trial; and (2) that he may be protected against another prosecution for the same offense.”
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.