green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 ·
…jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Paula Lewis, United States of America v. Gary Darnall, United States of America v. Terry Crafton, United States of America v. Ross Alan Milburn, United States of America v. Marion Milburn, United States of America v. Ross E. Milburn, United States of America v. Ronald Throop, United States of America v. Paula Throop
jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Lewis
jury can infer a defendant's intent to distribute from the quantity of drugs in the defendant's possession.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Erroll Flynn Shepard, United States of America v. Tony Skannell, Also Known as Tomcat, United States of America v. Barry Renfold Cooley, United States of America v. Roy G. Straughan, Also Known as George Clark, Also Known as C-Note (3), Also Known as C-Nutt (3)
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979). 37 "A bill of particulars serves to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, [and] to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at trial." United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984 , 989-990 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1134 , 123 S.Ct. 918 , 154 L.Ed.2d 825 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Erroll Flynn Shepard
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
Wessels, 12 F.3d at 750 ; accord United States v. Hester, 917 F.2d 1083, 1084 (8th Cir.1990) (cautioning that “a bül of particulars is not a proper tool for discovery,” and so the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant’s “discovery-oriented bül of particulars”) (citing United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979)).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Tyler
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gamble
See State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Marvin Leo Beasley
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald P. Matlock
See generally, United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1351-52 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); United States v. Miller, supra, 543 F.2d at 1224 ; Hemphill v. United States, supra, 392 F.2d at 49 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lonnie D. Rhoads
See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1349 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979); United States v. Little, 562 F.2d 578, 580 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Wisdom, 534 F.2d 1306, 1309 (8th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. S.M.
See also State v. Phillips, 365 So.2d 1304, 1308 (La.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 ; McDonald v. State, 513 S.W.2d 44, 46-47 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); State v. Childs, 146 Wis.2d 116 , 430 N.W.2d 353, 355 (1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1025 , 109 S.Ct. 1154 , 103 L.Ed.2d 213 (1989); Murray v. State, 770 P.2d 1131, 1139 (Alaska Ct.App.1989).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State in Interest of SM
See also State v. Phillips, 365 So. 2d 1304, 1308 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed. 2d 287 ; McDonald v. State, 513 S.W. 2d 44, 46-47 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Arenal
See also United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juan Cabada Arenal, A/K/A David Omera, A/K/A Cansio, United States of America v. Pablo Diaz, United States of America v. Rene Cordero, United States of America v. Daniel Rogelio Gonzales
See also United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919 , 99 S.Ct. 2843 , 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979). 24 In the present case, we agree that the wording of Count VII was vague, particularly with respect to the place of the alleged criminal act.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kirkham
v.
Overberg, Correctional Superintendent
v.
Overberg, Correctional Superintendent
No. 78-6329.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 4, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.