Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F.2d 1194 - United States v. Davis

United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.2d 1194 · 1987

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
13
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

104 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Chambers (1991), 24 Cal. 4th 243 - People v. Ayala (2000)

104 federal appellate · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 states

87019871990200020102020decided

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. § 843 (§ 403 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. § 963

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Blockburger v. United States · Faretta v. California

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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “heavy burden of showing specific and compelling prejudice resulting from a joint trial which can be rectified only by separate trials.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'heavy burden of showing specific and compelling prejudice resulting from a joint trial which can be rectified only by separate trials.' ... [T]he error requires reversal only 'if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'”
    4 later decisions 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.