United States v. Harrell’s Empirical Analysis
737 F.2d 971 · 1984
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Paiva (1989), State v. McKee (2001)
101 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hamling v. United States · Russell v. United States · Santoni 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lay experience based on familiarity through prior use, trading, or law enforcement; a high sales price; on-the-scene remarks by a conspirator identifying the substance as a drug; and behavior characteristic of sales and use such as testing, weighing, cutting and peculiar ingestion.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for substantive offenses which were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy before he joined it or after he withdrew from it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Count one of the indictment charges that from in or about early 1979 through in or about June of 1984, at Jacksonville, in the Middle District of Florida, that each of the defendants combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with other persons to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, quantities of controlled substances, including heroin, cocaine, marijuana and Talwin, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 846. Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) cited in this indictment provides in pertinent part as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance.” Heroin, cocaine, marijuana and Talwin are controlled substances within the meaning of the law. In order to establish the offense proscribed by this statute, the Government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant knowingly and willfully possessed heroin, cocaine, marijuana or Talwin as charged. And, second, that he possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. To possess with intent to distribute simply means to possess with intent to deliver or transfer possession of a controlled substance to another person with or without any financial interest in the transaction. Now, section 846 of Title 21 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any person who conspires to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a co”
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.