United States v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.2d 871 · 1990
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably United States v. Tanner (1991), United States v. Amparo (1992)
30 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Bailey · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · United States v. Flynt · United States v. Contento-Pachon · United States v. Gant
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A coercion or duress defense requires the establishment of three elements: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Scott's failure to avail himself of the readily accessible alternative of contacting law enforcement officials is persuasive evidence of the hollow nature of Scott's claimed coercion [i.e., duress] defense”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the evidence is lacking as to any element of the coercion [i.e., duress] defense the trial court may properly disallow the defense as a matter of law and refuse to instruct the jury as to coercion [i.e., duress]”
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.