Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 900 F.2d 37 - United States v. Thomas

United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

900 F.2d 37 · 1990

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
6
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

124 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Davis (1994)

124 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

16201990200020102020decided

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 Solem v. Helm · United States v. Powell · Dunn v. United States · Rummel v. Estelle · United Families of America v. Kendrick

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

  1. “Congress could rationally have concluded that distribution of cocaine base is a greater menace to society than distribution of cocaine powder and warranted greater penalties because it is less expensive and, therefore, more accessible, because it is considered more addictive than cocaine powder and because it is specifically targeted toward youth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) does not discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification or the exercise of a fundamental right, and thus does not require heightened scrutiny.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[c]riminal defendants are afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.