Harrison v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““the controlling consideration should be whether the charge was fairly and fully enough stated to apprise defendant of what he must meet, and to protect him against another prosecution, and whether those particulars in which the proof may differ in form from the charge support the conclusion that respondent could have been misled to his injury.” Harrison v. United States, 200 F. 662 , 673 (CA 6, 1912).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Crowder · Gridley v. United States

2. ““ * * * The new vacuum cleaner was first put on the market in February, 1910, succeeding in respondent’s business a somewhat similar, but cheaper and less efficient, device. The first year about 50,000-cleaners were sold. The retail price-to the user was $8.50; the agent paid $4.50. The total sales for the-first 11 months were $180,000. The device was manually operated, by handles swinging, bellows like, to- and from each other; the handles, actuated suction pistons in two cylinders; and there were the usual: slotted nozzle, settling chamber, and porous fabric bag. Upon the trial, it appeared beyond dispute that the-‘New Home Vacuum Cleaner’ was. an efficient and useful device, sold at, a reasonable price. Indeed, the-United States Attorney frankly states that there is no ground for claiming any fraud as to those purchasers who bought after seeing the-machine, and the great majority of purchasers were of this class. The-only fraud claimed is as against, those who sent in their money in response to advertising, without seeing the machine and relying on the-respondent’s circulars and letters; and so we find that the critical question is whether this literature sent through the mails contains fraudulent statements sufficient to support, a conviction. We do not fail to observe that in a prosecution of this character fraud need only be in the underlying scheme, and it is not necessary that the matter sent through the mail should itself contain fraudulent statements; but in this ca”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Rabinowitz

3. ““The sum of the whole matter is that, if we except extreme phrases like ‘terrific suction’ and ‘abolish housecleaning,’ the utterance of which cannot be seriously thought to be criminal, we find that every statement of fact is literally true, or, more accurately, might, under favorable conditions, be literally true; and nothing remains except that this advertising matter exaggerated the quality and extent of the work the machine would do with slight physical effort, and minimized the physical effort necessary to make the machine do the complete work of which it was said to be capable. We doubt very much whether this proof would make out the necessary preponderance of evidence in a civil action brought by a party claiming to have been defrauded. We are quite satisfied that it is wholly insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal intent which is essential to the felony here charged. We believe the statute here under consideration was never intended to cover such puffing of goods as is found in the vacuum cleaner circulars, and it should not receive a construction which permits such result. “We do not overlook the evidence of an admission by Harrison that the work of cleaning a room with the cleaner would be too laborious for a child or weakly woman, and that he knew it could not be so used. The advertising claim that the device could be used by a weakly woman would not naturally imply that she could use it for all purposes for which it could be used by an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Rabinowitz