Coronado v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
759 F.3d 977 · 2014
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Shepard v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura · Descamps v. United States · Nijhawan v. Holder · Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21 ),”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“illustrative” list of substances, because only the specific controlled substances listed in Section 780-104 will fall within the purview of Section 780-113(f)(l). 7 . Notably, the statute at issue in Coronado was strikingly similar to the statute at issue here, as it provided that a person who "possesses any controlled substance which is [] classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.... shall be punished-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.”
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.