United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
993 F.2d 196 · 1993
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Cantrell (2006), United States v. Basinger (1995)
24 federal appellate · 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 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Murphy v. Sullivan · United States v. Castillo · United States v. Sitton · United States v. Vasquez-Chan · United States v. Torres-Medina
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It does not matter whether the drugs were sold on school property or to school children, or whether the drugs were merely possessed near the protected location by someone unconnected to the school. It suffices that the drugs are present within 1,000 feet of the school.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mere proximity to the drug, presence on property where it is found, and association with a person or persons having control of it are all insufficient to establish constructive possession.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where only part of the relevant offense conduct directly involved a protected location ... subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) may result in different offense levels. For example, if the defendant, as , part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan, sold 5 grams of heroin near a protected location and Í0 grams of heroin elsewhere, the offense level from subsection (a)(1) would be level 16 (2 plus the offense level for the sale of 5 grams of heroin, the amount sold near the protected location); the offense level from subsection (a)(2) would be level 17 (1 plus the level for the sale of 15 grams of heroin, the total amount of heroin involved in the 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.