United States v. Bollenbach’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.2d 199 · 1944
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1981 · most notably Bollenbach v. United States (1946), 67 Cal. 2d 64 - People v. Ross (1967)
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Crimmins · Rosen v. United States · Skelly v. United States · Drew v. United States · Lewith v. Irving Trust Co.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Besides stolen ‘securities,’ presumably valid, the statute covers ‘falsely made, forged, altered or counterfeited securities,’ and it can scarcely have been the purpose of Congress to exclude a security, originally valid, but later merged in a claim, and yet to include securities void from their inception. A lower limit was set for valid securities to exclude petty thefts; there was none in the case of false securities; and if, as the accused argues, the notes here in question had really been merged, they more nearly approached altered securities than valid ones. They had an actual value of $5,000, as the record shows, even though it was factitious, and would not have survived a full disclosure of the facts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . possession of stolen property in another state than that in which it was stolen shortly after the theft raises a presumption that the possessor was the thief and transported stolen properly in interstate commerce. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the possession of stolen goods raises any presumption that they have in fact been transported in interstate commerce.”
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.