United States v. Frorup’s Empirical Analysis
963 F.2d 41 · 1992
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably United States of America v. Alex Vazquez (2001), United States v. Starnes (2009)
23 federal appellate · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Keeble v. United States · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life · Duckworth v. Eagan
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person may be found guilty of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance even if he personally did not do every act constituting the offense charged, if he aided and abetted the commission of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. For you to find the defendant guilty of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance by reason of aiding and abetting, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the elements of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance were committed by some person or persons and that the defendant aided and abetted the commission of that crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence from which any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“aiding and abetting is implied in every federal indictment for a substantive offense”
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.