Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 923 F.2d 607 - United States v. Stuart

United States v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis

923 F.2d 607 · 1991

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
8
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

62 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Connell (1992), United States v. Staufer (1994)

62 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

710199120002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Holland v. United States · Hampton v. United States · United States v. Rich

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

  1. “a defendant, although predisposed to commit a minor or lesser offense, is entrapped in committing a greater offense subject to greater punishment.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'neither possession nor an actual sale by a defendant need be proved by the government on a charge of distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of drugs.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and to accept as established all reasonable inferences to support the conviction.... It is not necessary that the evidence at trial be so overwhelming as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; rather, the evidence must merely be sufficient to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the offense alleged.”
    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.