Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 F.2d 1084 - United States v. Mayo

United States v. Mayo’s Empirical Analysis

721 F.2d 1084 · 1983

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
states following
April 1998
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 18 U.S.C. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law) · 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. § 1291

Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Dorszynski v. United States · Nash 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[tjhis court has, on numerous occasions, had the opportunity to review convictions for violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846. As we have previously stated, and again reiterate, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence' to establish a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, we will affirm the trial court unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, could not have persuaded any rational trier of fact of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a combination or confederation between two or more people formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts, a criminal act,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “circumstantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer the existence of an agreement is permissible.”
    3 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.