920 F. Supp. 245 - United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · United States v. Darby · Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States · Kashif 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the Drug Act bears a substantial relation to commerce by regulating the manufacture, distribution, and sale of controlled substances that frequently travel in intrastate commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.