Freeman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.2d 978 · 1945
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1981 · most notably Pinkerton v. United States (1946), United States v. Skillman (1971)
24 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
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Braverman v. United States · Gavieres v. United States · Ford v. United States · United States v. William Rabinowich
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Congress has the power to create separate and distinct offenses growing out of the same act, but whenever it appears that the proof of one offense proves every essential element of another growing out of the same act, the Fifth Amendment limits the punishment to a single act. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 343 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 .” “The overt acts stated in the third count in the indictment are two in number: (1) That a defendant under counts 1 and 2 delivered the drug; (2) that another defendant collected the money. The third count of the indictment clearly alleged a conspiracy, but it is equally clear that counts 1 and 2 included every element of the conspiracy. All of the parties to the conspiracy count were principals in the other two counts. There can be no doubt that the substantive offenses charged in the two counts required proof of joint action, just as it was required under the third count.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is excluded from the rule conspiracies to commit erimes which in their very nature require concerted action of all the participants. In such cases, the result has such a close connection with the objective offense as to be inseparable from it. United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354 , 355, 46 S.Ct. 513 , 70 L.Ed. 986 ; Lisansky v. United States, 4 Cir., 31 F.2d 846 , 67 A.L.R. 67 .” Freeman v. United States, 146 F.2d 978 , 979 (6th Cir. 1945).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It was there pointed out [Moss v. United States, supra] that the conspiracy count embraced many overt acts aside from the substantive 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.