Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 F.2d 772 - United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez

United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

875 F.2d 772 · 1989

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
3
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably United States v. Carranza (2002), United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez (1995)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

26019891990200020102020decided

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. § 952

Relies on United States v. Jewell · United States v. Douglass · United States v. Klein · United States v. Normandeau · United States v. Hoyt

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

  1. “if he believes he has some controlled substance in his possession.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “jury affidavits should be admitted to show that the jurors did not believe Ramirez-Ramirez knew he had cocaine rather than marijuana in his possession. Again, this finding would not affect the verdict or the sentence in this case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the exact nature of the substance with which he was dealing.”
    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.