Marshall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
197 F. 511 · 1912
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Schaffer v. United States (1955), Kempe v. United States (1945)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Colt v. United States · Booth 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question here was whether the defendant had devised a scheme to defraud and had used the United States mails in furtherance* thereof. In order to prove guilty intent, the government introduced testimony showing defendant’s connection with another similar scheme. The admission of such testimony is an exception to the general rule. It is allowed, where a guilty-intent must be shown, to meet the presumption of aeeident or mistake. Such is the case of passing counterfeit money, or of filing undervaluing invoices ‘with intent to evade’ the customs law, or of making false representations ‘with intent’ to obtain property thereby. When the government has proved that the defendant has passed a counterfeit coin, or has filed an undervaluing invoice, or has made false representations, the case is not fully made out. Every one of these things might be done innocently in one instance, but hardly in many instances. The exception ought not to be extended. Such testimony certainly prejudices the defendant, even if the court charges the jury that it is admitted only to show intent. It is not needed in the case of a scheme to defraud. It would bo impossible to find the existence of a scheme to defraud, without finding also the fraudulent intent of tho person who devised it. The moment the fraudulent scheme is established, there is no necessity for resorting to other transactions, as in the excepted cases mentioned. No one can have an innocent intent in devising a fraudulent scheme.””
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.