Singleton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 19 U.S.C. § 1401 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 955 · 21 U.S.C. § 955A · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 46 U.S.C. § 12101
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Douglas v. People of State of California · Carnegie v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Well, in this particular case, one of the elements that you will have to decide is whether this was a vessel of the United States and there is no real controversy in my own mind about that. The parties, the evidence is there. There is [sic] exhibits that tell you that this vessel was registered, documented in the United States.... [46 U.S.C.App. § 1903] says basically this, it is unlawful for any person on board a vessel of the United States or on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in this particular case, I already pointed to you out [sic.] the fact that there is no real controversy about that fact ... That is what you have to decide, possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance and then sub-section C is the one that defines a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and I have already told you that the Marilyn E, with the papers that we have on hand, is a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.... ... If I were to read the elements of this offense, I would tell you as follows: I would tell you that you would have to find in each particular case that each defendant was located on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when this happened....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is unlawful for any person on board a vessel of the United States, or on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to knowingly or intentionally manufacture or distribute, or to possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.”
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.