Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Guillermo Vallejo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Guillermo Vallejo Anchor | green | “had knowledge of how the entire organization operated, and thus knew he was carrying the drugs.” | 4 |
| 2 | R.B. Matthews, Inc. v. Transamerica Transportation Services, Inc., a Corporation | green | “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Mariano Murillo | green | “drug traffickers do not entrust large quantities of drugs to people who are unaware that they are transporting them,” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Javier Valencia-Amezcua | green | “reasonably be read so broadly,” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Javier Valencia-Amezcua | green | “requires in every case the exclusion of expert testimony on the structure of drug organizations where, as here, the defendant is not charged with conspiracy.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.