In re Mazzio’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.3d 487 · 2014
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Teague v. Lane · Ring v. Arizona · Bousley v. United States · Harris 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Alleyne does not fall into either Teague exception because it is not a substantive rule and it also does not meet the high standard for new rules of criminal procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Barnes“Alleyne presented a new rule of constitutional law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Barnes
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.