United States v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 222 · 1991
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 21 U.S.C. § 811 (§ 201 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Whalen v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Wrenn v. McFadden
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this [control and enforcement] subchapter or [the import and export] subchapter ... of this [drug abuse and prevention] chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]lthough the DEA descheduled... Vicks Inhaler, the DEA did not deschedule all forms of methamphetamine, and thus, `methamphetamine is still properly classified as a schedule II controlled substance.'”
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.