Rutkowski v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate ·

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the statute involved here, to sustain the robbery charge, evidence of forcible taking or a taking by putting the individual robbed in fear, is essential, while to sustain the charge of felonious taking only the elements of ordinary larceny need be proved. Other and additional proof than that needed for larceny is required to establish the crime of robbery, and in this sense the two offenses are distinct and separate. If the crime of robbery has been made out, however, no additional proof is required to establish the crime of larceny. There may be larceny without robbery, but there can be no robbery without larceny, for robbery includes larceny. Lamore v. United States, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 12 , 136 F.2d 766 . Robbery is in fact larceny committed by violence, and includes stealing and asportation as well as assault. Bertsch v. Snook, 5 Cir., 36 F.2d 155 ; Costner v. United States, 4 Cir., 139 F. 2d 429 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Younger v. United States

2. ““The test of whether offenses charged in two or more counts of an indictment [or in separate indictments] constitute separate and distinct crimes is whether each count [or indictment] requires proof of an additional fact which is not required by others.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 147 F. Supp. 681 - Pifer v. United States