United States v. Soto’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 1181 · 1992
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably United States v. Locascio (1993), United States v. Stevens (1993)
49 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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc. · Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant who claims minor participation must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to a reduction due to his or her reduced level of culpability. A district court's finding as to a defendant's role in a criminal activity is a factual determination that will not be overturned unless 'clearly erroneous.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he jury could also have reasonably determined that only trusted members of the operation would be permitted entry into the apartment, because allowing outsiders to have access to an apartment with large quantities of narcotics in plain view could compromise the security of the operation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under a particular set of circumstances that provided a reasonable jury with ample grounds to conclude that [the defendant] was present ... to package crack for distribution.”
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.