United States v. Samples’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 193 · 1990
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2017
9 federal appellate ·
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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1657 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Smith v. Hooey · Kahn v. Grant
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trier of fact need not credit any witness' testimony, even if unim-peached.”). 10 . A cutting agent is a substance that is less expensive than a particular drug and is used to dilute the drug, in turn giving a seller a larger amount of the product to sell. For example, a seller could “cut” his cocaine with aspirin or flour and in that way increase the amount of the salable product. 11 . In Rolande-Gabriel, we noted that the”
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.