United States v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 1175 · 1991
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Bowie (2000), United States v. Zafiro (1991)
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Huddleston 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he natural inference ... that those who live in a house know what is going on inside, particularly in the common areas.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the chain analysis, the government need not prove a direct connection between all the conspirators. A single conspiracy may be established when each conspirator knows of the existence of the larger conspiracy and the necessity for other participants, even if he is ignorant of their precise identities. When the conspirators form a chain, each is likely to know that other conspirators are required.... The existence of a chain helps us determine both the unlawful objective and the conspirators’ intent.... [E]ach link in the chain may rely upon the other links in furtherance of the common interest. The street dealer relies upon his supplier; the supplier relies upon his supplier; and so on. The existence of such a vertically integrated, loose-knit combination may raise the inference that each conspirator has agreed with the others (some whose specific identity may be unknown) to further a common unlawful objective, e.g., the distribution of narcotics.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith”
2 later decisions 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.