United States v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 981 · 1990
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Chapman v. United States (1991), United States v. Marshall (1990)
40 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · Gregory Lumber Co. 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nless otherwise specified, the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the [offense level] table refers to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After consulting with a number of DEA agents and prosecutors about the distri butions patterns for these various drugs, the Committee selected quantities of drugs which if possessed by an individual would likely be indicative of operating at such a high level. The Committee’s statement of quantities is of mixtures, compounds or preparations that contain a detectable amount of the drug — these are not necessarily quantities of pure substance. One result of this market-oriented approach is that the Committee has not generally related these quantities to the number of doses of the drug that might be present in a given sample. The quantity is based on the minimum quantity that might be controlled or directed by a trafficker in a high place in the processing and distribution chain. (Emphasis omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as otherwise provided in section 845, 845a, or 845b of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: ... (1)(B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving— ... (v) 1 gram or more of a ... substance containing a detectable amount of [any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of ... LSD] ... such person shall be sentenced_”
1 later decision 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.