May v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 994 · 1949
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 29 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 191 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2010 · most notably United States v. Brewster (1972), United States v. Johnson (1966)
115 federal appellate · 29 district · 10 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. § 202 · 18 U.S.C. § 203 · 18 U.S.C. § 3486 (§ 248 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 550 · 2 U.S.C. § 192 · 28 U.S.C. § 634
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Holt v. United States · Counselman v. Hitchcock · Brown v. Walker
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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“18 U.S.C. § 201 (f): § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses. • Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official. Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. 18 U.S.O. § 2(a): § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. 26 U.S.C. § nU(a) : § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States. (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States— jj: % if: iff * (2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; Hi * ❖ H* * shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment' and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The Fifth Amendment deals with compulsion to testify against oneself. Experience long ago demonstrated that public authorities must at times, in the public interest, obtain information which might incriminate the informant. They may compel that testimony. But they cannot violate, qualify or limit the Constitution. Therefore, when they compel testimony, they cannot use it against the informant. The Constitution is rigid in this respect. “But not all testimony given public authorities is compelled. Some is given voluntarily, and some, even though not volunteered, is supplied without objection. The Constitution says nothing about such testimony. It does not provide that what a man says voluntarily may not be used against him. So a statute which deals generally with the use of testimony falls partly within and partly without the scope of the Amendment. In so far as it relates to the use of involuntary testimony, it cannot impinge upon the prohibition of the Amendment. In so far as it relates to the use of other testimony, it is outside the scope of the Amendment and unaffected by it. The Constitution does not require that a statute dealing generally, but exclusively, with the use of testimony be construed to prevent prosecution upon the subject matter of the testimony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Adams v. State““Appellants contend that the conspiracy statute itself describes two offenses. That statute reads: ‘If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States * * *.’ Appellants say that the ‘either * * * or’ shows that Congress meant that a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States is a different offense from a conspiracy to defraud the United States. We think that the opinion and decision in the Manton case [United States v. Manton, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 834 ] established a rule contrary to this contention. The court was there dealing with this same statute. The argument was that a conspiracy to violate a criminal statute and to defraud the United States was two offenses. The court, quoting Frohwerk v. United States [ 249 U.S. 204 , 39 S.Ct. 249 , 63 L.Ed. 561 ], said: ‘The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.