United States v. Lokey’s Empirical Analysis
945 F.2d 825 · 1991
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Munoz (1998), United States v. Hahn (1992)
69 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Carnegie v. United States · Santoni v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · Nicholas 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2) does not limit acts that are 'part of the same course of conduct or scheme or plan to the period covered by the statute of limitations.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the activities of one aspect of the scheme are necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the venture, where there áre several parts inherent in a larger common plan, or where the character of the property involved or nature of the activity is such that knowledge on the part of one member concerning the existence and function of other members of the same scheme is necessarily implied due to the overlapping nature of the various roles of the participants, the existence of a single conspiracy will be inferred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and, within reasonable limits, proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient.... When conspiracy is charged, an indictment satisfies the requirements of the statute of limitations if the government alleges and proves, at trial or pretrial, that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period.”
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.