Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 F.2d 856 - United States v. Hyson

United States v. Hyson’s Empirical Analysis

721 F.2d 856 · 1983

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
5
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

76 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Cresta (1987), United States v. Akitoye (1991)

76 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

43019831990200020102020decided

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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Matlock · Steagald v. United States · Stoner v. California · Nye & Nissen 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[sought] by his [ ] actions to make it succeed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “On the one hand, mere association between the principal and those accused of aiding and abetting is not sufficient to establish guilt; nor is mere presence at the scene and knowledge that a crime was to be committed sufficient to establish aiding and abetting. On the other hand, there are circumstances where presence itself implies participation — as where a 250-pound bruiser stands silently by during an extortion attempt, or a companion stands by during a robbery, ready to sound a warning or give other aid if required. In sum, the line that separates mere presence from culpable presence is a thin one, often difficult to plot.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Hyson has not been present during this trial, and I think that was, except for the first day, and this instruction that I am giving to you now I want to make clear to you does not apply in any way whatsoever to any of the other defendants in this case. I’m speaking only of Mr. Hyson. Is that perfectly clear, members of the jury? You all indicate "Yes.””
    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.