Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 853 F.2d 1512 - United States v. Zavala-Serra

United States v. Zavala-Serra’s Empirical Analysis

853 F.2d 1512 · 1988

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
2
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. McDougherty (1990), United States v. Williams (1993)

69 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

67019881990200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Bourjaily v. United States · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'will not reject the district court's factual findings unless we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[P]rior to the final admission of out-of-court statements of co-conspirators against a criminal defendant to the fact finder, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant was connected to it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the proportionality requirement of the eighth amendment does not require that a defendant's sentence be harmonized with sentences imposed by other courts on other defendants”
    2 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.