United States v. Counts’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.2d 348 · 1982
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably United States v. Carcaise (1985), United States v. Marr (1988)
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bifulco v. United States · Lewis v. Faulkner · Hart v. United States · United States v. Kuck
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he preferred practice in dismissing a section 2255 motion in accordance with Rule 4(b) is to enumerate the issues raised by the movant, specify that each is being summarily dismissed in accordance with the rule, and explain the legal grounds for that action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“enumerate the issues raised by the prisoner, and explain the reasons for that action. Such a disposition provides a basis for appellate review of the dismissal of the motion that, standing alone, might arguably have some merit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it plainly appears from the face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case”
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.