United States v. Sutter’s Empirical Analysis
160 F.2d 754 · 1947
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 1988 · most notably United States v. Kenny (1972), United States v. Braasch (1974)
31 federal appellate · 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.
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 60
Relies on Viereck v. United States · United States v. Eaton · Donnelley v. United States · Daniels v. United States · United States v. Laudani
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. “Every officer, clerk, agent, or employee of the United States, and every person representing himself to be or assuming to act as such officer, clerk, agent, or employee, who, under color of his office, clerkship, agency, or employment, or under color of his pretended or assumed office, clerkship, agency, or employment, is guilty of extortion, and every person who shall attempt any act which if performed would make him guilty of extortion, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” (R.S.Sec. 5481; June 28, 1906, c. 3574, 34 Stat. 546 ; Mar. 4, 1909, c. 321, Sec. 85, 35 Stat. 1104 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No question is presented as to the instructions as it is not shown that before the jury retired the defendant objected to the refusal to give the instructions he requested, stating distinctly the matter to which he objected and the grounds of his objection, as required by Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress did not see fit to define extortion in the terms known to the common law . . . , extortion is used in its common, ordinary sense as distinguished from the sense in which it was known at common law.”
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.