United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
688 F.3d 416 · 2012
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Maxwell · United States v. Prieskorn · United States v. Verdin-Garcia · United States v. Honken · United States v. Roach
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“United States v. Walker , 688 F.3d 416 , 420 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court's factual determinations will stand”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“That [the defendants] and their coconspirators did not have a scientific or technical understanding of the term “ice” is relevant to the district court’s assessment of the reliability of their testimony as to drug identity or purity, but does not necessarily preclude the district court from finding the methamphetamine ... was “ice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court's factual determination about whether the defendant accepted responsibility is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse it only if it is so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation.”
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.