Kanner v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.2d 285 · 1927
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 1999
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Wong Tai v. United States · Durland v. United States · United States v. Simmons · Horowitz v. United States · Greenbaum 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The crime is one which is peculiarly within the bankrupt’s own knowledge, and one which may be committed under circumstances which render impossible a description of the assets concealed. Where the very essence of the crime is secreting property, how can it be necessary to allege knowledge of that of which the defendant’s own acts prevent any knowledge? It is enough to excuse particularity of description of the manner of committing the offense for the grand jurors to allege that they do not know the details. Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 , 16 S.Ct. 508 , 40 L.Ed. 709 ; United States v. Claflin, Fed.Cas.No. 14,798, 13 Blatchf. 178 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The proof itself was inferential, and did not disclose what pieces of dress goods were concealed, or where they were concealed, «r whether they had not been turned into cash, which was concealed. No one but the defendants knew what the concealed property was, or in what form it was, or what they had done with it. The fact of concealment was inferable from the large discrepancy between the merchandise which the books showed to be on hand and what was actually found, coupled with the defendants’ suspicious conduct, for example, in camouflaging the stock on their shelves and withdrawing money on the eve of bankruptcy. Such a discrepancy has been recognized as a link in the chain of proof of concealment in Stern v. United States [3 Cir.], 193 F. 888, 892 ; United States v. Greenbaum, D.C., 252 F. 259, 265 ; Frieden v. United States [4 Cir.], 5 F.2d 556 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.