Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 F.3d 377 - United States v. Scott

United States v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

64 F.3d 377 · 1995

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
February 2013
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2013

19 federal appellate · 1 district ·

150199520002010decided

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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Doerr v. Doerr · Halas v. Department of Energy · Martin v. Delaware · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Toliver v. County of Sullivan

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to commit against the United States the criminal offense of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana; (2) defendant individually, voluntarily, and intentionally joined in the agreement or understanding, either at the time it was first reached or at some later time while it was still in effect; (3) at the time defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of the agreement or understanding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The jury’s verdict must be upheld if there is an interpretation of the evidence that would allow a reasonable-minded jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A conviction may be based on circumstantial as well as direct evidence and need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. Id. In addition, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and accept all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, ... and accept[s] all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury's verdict.”
    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.