United States v. Chalarca’s Empirical Analysis
95 F.3d 239 · 1996
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. Diaz (1999), United States v. Jackson (2003)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Carolco Television Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. · United States v. Shabani
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the quantity of drugs attributed to a defendant need not be foreseeable to him when he personally participates, in a direct way, in a jointly undertaken drug transaction”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and (B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“critical distinction is between direct and remote involvement in the illegal activity because only the latter will trigger a reasonable foreseeability analysis”
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.