United States v. Carll’s Empirical Analysis
105 U.S. 611 · 1881
Citation profile
347 federal appellate · 133 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 779 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Morissette v. United States (1952), Hamling v. United States (1974)
347 federal appellate · 133 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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
Relies on United States v. Cruikshank · United States v. Howell · Commonwealth v. Filburn
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 779 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The indictment . . . shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. . . . No indictment is insufficient ... by reason of a defect or imperfection in matter of form in the indictment, which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In an indictment upon a statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished. ⅞ * * The language of the statute on which this indictment is founded includes the case of every person who, with intent to defraud, utters any forged obligation of the United States. But the offense at which it is aimed is similar to the common-law offense of uttering a forged or counterfeit bill. In this case, as in .that, knowledge that the instrument is forged and counterfeited is essential to make out the cióme; and an uttering, with intent to defraud, of an instrument in fact counterfeit, but supposed by the defendant to be genuine, though within the words of the statute, would not be within its meaning and object.””
3 later decisions 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.