Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 979 F.2d 287 - United States v. Murphy

United States v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

979 F.2d 287 · 1992

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Bianco (1993), Rein III Ts v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Jso a (1998)

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

200199220002010decided

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)

Relies on United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Chapman v. United States · United States v. Motz · Azizi v. Thornburgh · United States v. Osburn

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he constitutionality of a statute [or policy] is a legal question subject to de novo review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “neither the statute nor the Guidelines makes any distinction between live and dead plants or between harvested and unharvested plants”); cf. United States v. Murphy, 979 F.2d 287 , 290 (2nd Cir.1992) (dictum) C'[I]f there is proof that a defendant hás recently harvested ... and the marijuana in his or her possession is the fruit of those poisonous plants, then that individual should be sentenced as if the plants had not yet been harvested.”
    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.