Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 924 F.2d 1148 - United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona

United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona’s Empirical Analysis

924 F.2d 1148 · 1991

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
3
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Brandon (1994), United States v. Gore (1998)

88 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

6701991200020102020decided

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. § 3661 (Drug and Alcohol Dependent Offenders Treatment Act of 1986)

Relies on United States v. Young · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Grady v. Corbin · Nicholas v. United States · Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver

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

  1. “'the offenses merge where the distribution itself is the sole evidence of possession, or where possession is shown to exist only at the moment of distribution.' " Sepulveda, 102 F.3d at 1317 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 924 F.2d 1148 , 1159 (1st Cir.1991)). As a corollary, those circuits adhering to the "merger”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The test for prejudice sufficient to justify a change of venue is whether (a) the facts show that jury prejudice should be presumed, and (b) if prejudice should not be presumed, whether the jury was actually prejudiced against the defendant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “We have emphasized in the past, and do so again here, that reasonable doubt does not require definition.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.