United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 837 · 1980
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Costello v. United States · Arizona v. Washington · Mattox v. United States · Jeffers v. United States · Cardillo 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]ndicted defendants do not have a right to challenge the fairness of the grand jury ... [absent] a showing that the grand jury was corrupt and had not followed the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“pierce the armor surrounding the grand jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The courts have not taken the “substantial income” requirement as setting some definite amount of profits that must be proven to obtain a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Nor do we think this would be a proper interpretation of the statute. The “substantial income” requirement should be interpreted as a guide to the magnitude of the criminal enterprise. Congress did not seek to punish small-time operators under this section. It sought to punish only those who obtained “substantial income or resources” from a continuing series of drug violations. Certainly, this can be established by substantial gross receipts or substantial gross income as in [United States v.] Sisea [ 503 F.2d 1337 (2nd Cir.1974)] or [United States v.] Manfredi [ 488 F.2d 588 (2nd Cir.1973)]. Examined in this light, and keeping in mind the extreme difficulty in this conspiratorial, criminal area of finding hard evidence of net profits, the definition of income as “gross income or gross receipts” was entirely proper.”
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.