Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.2d 397 - United States v. Bent

United States v. Bent’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.2d 397 · 1949

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
March 1979
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 1979 · most notably Keto v. United States (1951), United States v. Smith (1979)

22 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1501949195019601970decided

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

Relies on Hagner v. United States · Dealy v. United States · Hewitt v. United States · Ekberg v. United States · Rose v. United States

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

  1. ““[T]he indictment in controversy gave to Bent and Jones all the information they needed and much more than they wanted. They, of course, knew what the indictment meant. * * * “Despite its defects, we think that count II of the indictment was sufficiently informative, when read in the light of the applicable statute to which the indictment referred, the subject matter of the other counts, and the indictment as a whole, to support the sentences imposed upon the defendants. * * * The second count should be construed to mean what the defendants, their counsel, and the trial court construed it to mean when Bent and Jones entered their pleas of not guilty, were tried, and were sentenced. There is, we think, no logic or justification in punishing poor, but non-prejudicial, criminal pleading by releasing a guilty defendant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The defendants could have been under no misapprehension about the fact that the government was charging them with the robbery and with having jeopardized the life of the custodian by the use of a dangerous weapon in committing it. There is no suggestion made that the defendants were in any way actually misled or prejudiced by the defect in the second count.” 3”
    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.