United States v. Whigham’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 860 (§ 419 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on United States v. Booker · Gall v. United States · Kimbrough v. United States · Spears v. United States · United States v. Pruitt
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjritieally evaluating the crack/cocaine ratio in terms of its fealty to the purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act is not optional. It is not something that a judge has discretion to do or not to do. The Supreme Court in Kimbrough and Spears held that an advisory Guideline system required it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whigham, however, was sentenced before any of the changes took effect.” Id. at 241 & n. 2, 2010 WL 4959882 at & n. 2. 8 . Not only was I the sentencing judge in Spears, I was also the sentencing judge in Pepper — perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not! 9 . Thus, the hysteria about”
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.