United States v. Borders’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1996 · most notably 38 Ill. 2d 535 - People v. Urbasek (1967), In re Agler (1969)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 1992 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031
Relies on People v. Lewis · 125 F. Supp. 647 - White v. Reid · Martin v. State · 133 F. Supp. 38 - Suarez v. Wilkinson · United States v. Webb
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.
““Students of criminology and penology generally agree that it is undesirable, from the standpoint both of the community and of the individual, that all juvenile offenders be treated as criminals. Many of them can be reclaimed and made useful citizens if they are properly treated and cared for, and are not permitted to mingle with mature and perhaps hardened criminals. In order to achieve these purposes it is important that juvenile offenders should not become inmates of penitentiaries or other penal institutions in which adults are incarcerated. It is likewise advisable that a juvenile delinquent for whom there is some hope of rehabilitation should not receive the stigma of a criminal record that would attach to him throughout his life.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A proceeding under the [Juvenile Delinquency] Act results in an adjudication of a status rather than the conviction of a crime with the stigma that attaches to such conviction. A trial under the Act is not a criminal trial and a strict application of criminal legal rules, procedural or substantive, will frustrate the purposes of the Act. Constitutional and statutory safeguards do not apply. * * * To sustain an adjudication of delinquency, most authorities require the same amount and kind of proof as would be required in an ordinary civil action.””
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.