Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 933 F.2d 1029 - United States v. Shabazz

United States v. Shabazz’s Empirical Analysis

933 F.2d 1029 · 1991

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2016
most recently cited

42 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Melendez v. United States (1996), United States v. Galloway (1992)

42 federal appellate ·

460199120002010decided

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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 991 · 28 U.S.C. § 994 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital · Sullivan v. Finkelstein · McCarthy v. Bronson

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

  1. “traditional tools of statutory construction,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We may set aside the guideline, therefore, only if it contravenes an 'unambiguously expressed intent of Congress' or is unreasonable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “makes a difference ... only if the gross-weight rule was intended to protect consumers of illegal drugs from being defrauded by unscrupulous dealers who would sell them a product more diluted than they have bargained for. Obviously, this is not a purpose of the rule.”
    1 later decision 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.