United States v. Vea-Gonzales’s Empirical Analysis
986 F.2d 321 · 1993
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Gideon v. Wainwright · Taylor v. United States · United States v. Tucker · Burgett v. Texas
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Constitution requires that defendants be given the opportunity to collaterally attack prior convictions which will be used against them at sentencing.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The authority given to the sentencing court by a discretionary approach is nearly unlimited. While one sentencing court might find “procedural expediency” argues against consideration of a collateral attack, another might well find a similar situation sufficiently compelling to require a hearing. That cannot further the goal of uniform and predictable sentences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If enforcement of constitutional rights sometimes undermines efficiency, it is the price we all pay for having a constitution.”
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.