United States v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 714 · 1979
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Bright (1980), United States v. Rodriguez (1980)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Allen v. United States · Pereira v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a second trial the doctrine of collateral estoppel will prohibit the Government from using evidence which, if believed, would necessarily indicate participation in the conspiracy which the Government failed to prove in the first trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Steven Robert Bolinger, Robert Jerome McTeer Bruce Hayes Munro, Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Johnny Dean Hall, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Oscar Cruz-Barrientos, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente · United States v. Bollinger“As a matter of law, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime and conspiracy to commit that crime are separate and distinct offenses. . . . Thus, as a general rule, the double jeopardy clause does not prevent prosecution for both conspiracy and aiding and abetting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance ....”
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.