United States v. Elam’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.2d 1234 · 1982
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Acosta-Cazares (1989), United States v. Drougas (1984)
117 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 959 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Albernaz v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · Braverman v. United States · Romano 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the activities of one aspect of the scheme are necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the venture, where there are several parts inherent in a larger common plan, or where the character of the property involved or the nature of the activity is such that knowledge on the part of one member concerning the existence and function of other members of the same scheme is necessarily implied due to the overlapping nature of the various roles of the participants, the existence of a single conspiracy will be inferred.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The failure to reurge the motion for acquittal, after introduction of defense evidence, constitutes a waiver of objection to the denial of the motions.”). The difference is immaterial, because the claims fail even under de novo review. 5 . Davis testified that Cavazos asked him to deliver marihuana to other people as well. 6 . Neal King, the man who sold Daniel the truck, testified that Daniel gave him Cavazos's AA&P business card when Daniel purchased the truck under the pseudonym”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“hubs,” which are often used to describe the nature of complex conspiracies. We reiterate Judge Brown’s comment in United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.1973), that”
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.