United States v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 1250 · 1992
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Dale (1993), United States v. Morgan (1997)
26 federal appellate · 7 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. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Harriss · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · California v. ARC America Corp. · United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. · Latimer v. Stainer
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he casual' drug user does not run afoul of this prohibition because he does not maintain his house for the purpose of using drugs but rather for the purpose of residence, the consumption of drugs therein being merely incidental to that purpose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]lain error affecting a substantial right so that a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result ... requires, at a minimum, a high probability that the judge's conduct adversely affected the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“knowingly open or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance[.]”
3 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.