United States v. Nanez’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 405 · 1982
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably United States v. Kinsey (1988), United States v. Weaver (1990)
64 federal appellate · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 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. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Berger v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Hullum 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court is not required 'to adhere to the rituals of Sec. 851(b) where a defendant, as a matter of law, is precluded from attacking the conviction forming the basis of the enhancement information.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"No person who stands convicted of an offense under this part may challenge the validity of any prior conviction under this section which occurred more than five years before the date of the information alleging such pri- or convictions.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the United States Attorney files an information under this section, the Court shall after conviction but before pronouncement of sentence inquire of the person with respect to whom the information was filed whether he affirms or denies that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the information, and shall inform him that any challenge to a prior conviction which is not made before sentence is imposed may not thereafter be raised to attack the sentence.”
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.