United States v. Edmonds’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 810 · 1996
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Richardson v. United States (1999), United States v. Hastings (1998)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 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 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3565 · 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (§ 60002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1593 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Graham v. Connor · Arizona v. Fulminante · Estelle v. McGuire
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government has to prove [ ] that such violation was part of a continuing series of related violations of the federal narcotics laws. A continuing series of violations requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that three or more violations of the laws occurred and that they, those three or more, were related to each other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On or about the 1st day of December, 1997, and continuing thereafter up to and including November 24, 1998, .. . the defendants, RUBEN ALMARAZ and CARLOS ALMARAZ, unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise in that the defendants knowingly violated provisions of Title 21, United States code, Sections 841 and 846, including but not limited to the violations alleged in counts Three through Eleven of this Second Superseding Indictment, which counts are re-alleged herein by reference as if fully set forth in this count, all of which violations were part of a continuing series of violations of Title 21 of the United States code, undertaken by the defendants with at least five (5) other persons, including but not limited to JESUS- OROZCO a/li/a "Chuy”, JANETTE OROZCO, CARLOS LOPEZ a/k/a "Congo”, ANTONIO LOPEZ a/ít/a "Flaco”, and JESSE CHAVEZ a/k/a Lorenzo Lopez, with respect to whom the defendants occupied a position of organizer, supervisor, and manager, and from which continuing series of violations the defendants obtained substantial income and resources. In víolátion of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if— “(1) he violates any provision of [the federal drug laws, i <?.,] this subehapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for which is a felony, and “(2) such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations of [the federal drug laws, i. <?.,] this subehapter or subchapter II of this chapter— “(A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer [or supervisor or manager] and "(B) from which such person come or resources.” § 848(c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.