United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.2d 557 · 1979
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably United States v. Pungitore (1990), United States v. Horn (1991)
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Iannelli v. United States · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · United States v. Wheeler
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) That the recording device was capable of taping the conversation now offered in evidence. "(2) That the operator of the device was competent to operate the device. "(3) That the recording is authentic and correct. "(4) That changes, additions or deletions have not been made in the recording. "(5) That the recording has been preserved in a manner that is shown to the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Allegations not essential to prove the crime for which the defendant is charged are mere surplusage and need not be proved or embodied in the instructions to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Successive prosecutions by state and federal governments are not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 , 196, 79 S.Ct. 666 [671], 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959). Such prosecutions are sanctioned under the ‘dual sovereignty’ doctrine, which recognizes that a single act may constitute separate and distinct offenses against two sovereigns, punishable by both. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 , 317, 98 S.Ct. 1079 [1082], 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 , 28, 98 S.Ct. 81 [84], 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 , 132, 79 S.Ct. 676 [682], 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); Abbate v. United States, supra, 359 U.S. at 194 [79 S.Ct. at 670]____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pope v. Thone
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.