Blitz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

274 federal appellate · 44 district · 40 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘ * * * It is as certain * * * ás the nature of the ease will admit, and there is no other mode in which a party may be sentenced on several convictions. Though uncertain at the time, depending upon a possible contingency that the imprisonment on the former sentence will be remitted or shortened, it will be made certain by the court. If the previous sentence is shortened by a reversal of the judgment or a pardon, it then expires, and then, by its terms, the sentence in question takes effect as if the previous one had expired by lapse of time. Nor will it make any difference that the previous judgment is reversed for error. It is voidable only, not void; and until reversed by a judgment it is to be deemed of full force and effect; and though erroneous and subsequently reversed on error, it is quite sufficient to fix the term at which another sentence shall take effect.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williamson v. United States · Howard v. United States

2. ““The first count charged that the defendant knowingly personated and voted, and attempted to vote, in the name of another person, to the grand jurors unknown, at an election had and held for choice of representative in the congress of the United States. But that was not, except by inference, a charge that the defendant in fact voted for representative in congress. He may have voted only for state officers, and yet it could be said, not unreasonably, that he voted at an election had and held for representative in congress. If, in voting for a state officer at such election, he knowingly personated and voted in the name of another, it was an offence against the state, punishable alone by the state, although the general election at which he voted was one at which a representative in congress was chosen. The object of section 5511 was to prevent frauds that would affect the vote for representatives in congress, and not to bring elections for state officers under the control of the general government.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 144 F. Supp. 593 - United States v. Bruno

3. ““The general rule that an indictment for an offense purely statutory is sufficient, if it pursues substantially the words of the statute, is subject to the qualification, fundamental in the law of criminal procedure, ‘that the accused must be apprised-by the indictment, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him, to the end that he may prepare his defense, and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense.’ United States v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360 , 362 [ 24 L. Ed. 819 ]; United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483 , 488 [ 8 Sup. Ct. 571 , 31 L. Ed. 516 ]. As said in United States v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611 , 612 [ 26 L. Ed. 1135 ], 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.’ ””

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