United States v. Mancuso’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.3d 780 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Schad v. Arizona · United States v. Carll
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“two or more acts, each of which would constitute an offense standing alone ... may instead be charged in a single count if those acts could be characterized as part of a single, continuing scheme.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“separate acts of distribution of controlled substances are distinct offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a), as opposed to a continuing crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance.”
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.