United States v. Atkins’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 426 · 1987
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably United States v. Broce (1989), United States v. Goff (1988)
30 federal appellate · 2 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. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Blackledge v. Perry · Russell 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the entry of a guilty plea does not waive a challenge based on a violation of the double jeopardy clause'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prosecutions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 , the general drug conspiracy statute ..., present an even greater need for defining the bounds of a conspiracy from an examination of the record than do prosecutions under the general criminal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 _ [A] Section 846 indictment is sufficient if it alleges a conspiracy to distribute drugs, the time during which the conspiracy was operative and the statute allegedly violated, even if it fails to allege or prove any specific overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, because a section 846 indictment may be tightly drawn, the court must look to the record to determine whether constituent elements of the two conspiracies charged indicate that the government has twice placed the defendant in jeopardy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where a valid double jeopardy claim would preclude a constitutional prosecution, a plea of guilty to that charge does not extinguish the double jeopardy claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Whitley
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.