United States v. Main’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 1046 · 1997
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2017
10 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1112
Relies on Kyles v. Whitley · United States v. Gaudin · United States v. Wing Fook Lui · United States v. Gaudin · United States v. Wood
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All of the authorities agree that to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter the harmful result must be within the risk foreseeably created by the accused’s conduct; if the physical causation is too remote, the law will not take cognizance of it. “The same result has been achieved by requiring that the accused’s conduct be a substantial factor in caus ing the harmful result or that it he the proximate, primary, direct, efficient, or legal cause of such harmful result””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It will be said that a failure to get prompt medical attention is not an unlikely hazard for the victim of an automobile accident. Agreed. But that judgment remains a judgment of fact, a judgment that is in the province of the jury. When the jury is not told that it must find that the victim's death was within the risk created by the defendant's conduct an element of the crime has been erroneously withdrawn from the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The element of causation is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the particular defendant was aware or should have been aware, unless: (a) the actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his 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.