United States v. Aguilar-Aranceta’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 18 · 1992
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Yeager v. United States (2009), State v. Lovejoy (1997)
36 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 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. § 952
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · United States v. Jorn · United States v. Powell
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.
“only [upon] an unequivocal showing that the issue sought to be foreclosed by the defendant from subsequent reconsideration was definitely, and necessarily decided by a jury in a final judgment, and in the defendant’s favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a mistrial is declared with the defendant’s consent, she is deemed to have waived any double jeopardy claim she might otherwise have. If, on the other hand, the defendant wishes to proceed to a verdict by the jury empaneled to try her, and the court declares a mistrial over her objection, the Double Jeopardy Clause will bar the defendant’s retrial unless manifest necessity required the court to so act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a previous judgment of acquittal was based on a general verdict ... this approach requires a court to “examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Butler
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.