United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.3d 1160 · 2014
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Crawford v. Washington · Payton v. New York · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'when there is joint occupancy of a residence, dominion over the premises by itself is insufficient to establish constructive possession.' In joint occupancy cases, there must be some additional nexus linking the defendant to the contraband.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The second time police officers entered, there was no justification for the war-rantless search. ... [Defendant’s] home was ‘secured,’ meaning ‘nobody could enter’ or ‘disturb anything.’ Neither exigent circumstances nor public safety any longer justified a warrantless entry, ..., and the officers — having assured themselves no one was inside — could not think there was any risk the marijuana might be destroyed ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.”
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.