Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 F.3d 596 - United States v. Cook

United States v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

76 F.3d 596 · 1996

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
April 2022
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Angle (2000), United States v. Casiano (1997)

38 federal appellate · 1 district ·

5501996200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 845 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 861 (§ 420 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Morissette v. United States · Bailey v. United States · United States v. Dunnigan · Brewster v. Derwinski · Staples 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It shall be unlawful for any person at least eighteen years of age to knowingly and intentionally... (2) employ, hire, [or] use ... a person under eighteen years of age to assist in avoiding detection or apprehension for any offense of this subchap-ter or subehapter II of this chapter by any Federal, State or local law enforcement official; or (3) receive a controlled substance from a person under 18 years of age, other than an immediate family member, in violation of this subchapter or sub-chapter II of this chapter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]here is no reason to apply the presumption in favor of a knowledge requirement [to 21 U.S.C. § 861(a)(3)] to protect otherwise innocent conduct for the obvious reason that receiving illegal drugs is not otherwise innocent conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the evidence ... was clearly sufficient to support the conclusion that [the defendant] knew that [his cohort] was brandishing a gun during the drug transaction”
    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.