United States v. Bollinger’s Empirical Analysis
796 F.2d 1394 · 1986
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Starrett (1995), United States v. Doherty (1989)
58 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 21 U.S.C. § 963
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Ashe v. Swenson · Jeffers v. United States · Wright v. United States · Barrett 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the evidence must be discovered following the trial; (2) the movant must show due diligence to discover the evidence; (3) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be material to issues before the court; and (5) the evidence must be of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a new result.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that substantial evidence produced at the first trial was also admitted at the second____ Contrary to Hall’s assertions, however, this evidence was'not necessarily rejected by the first jury. While it is all relevant to the conspiracy of which Hall was acquitted, it does not go to the particular element — agreement—that the jury must have found lacking. Rather, the evidence is relevant to Hall’s participation in the actual importation. As this element was not decided in his favor at the first trial, Hall’s conviction is not due to be overturned on collateral estop-pel grounds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant will not be held to have knowledge of any illegal importation solely on the basis of evidence that one or more of his alleged co-conspirators had such knowledge,”
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.