Phillips v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The question for decision is whether a District Court which has entered a judgment of conviction of a defendant upon an indictment or information containing a number of counts and has sentenced him to serve a period of imprisonment under each count — the periods to run consecutively, — may, after the defendant has commenced, the service of his sentence, suspend, for purposes of probation, the further execution of it with respect to completely unserved periods of imprisonment.” At page 331 the court said: “We are convinced that Congress, when it passed the Probation Act of March 4,1925, 43 Stat. 1259 , 18 U.S. C. (1940 Ed.) § 724, and when it enacted Chapter 231 of Title 18 U.S.C., did not intend to empower a District Court to suspend the execution of any part of a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a final judgment in a criminal case, after the defendant had entered upon the execution of the sentence.””

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

2. “(a) Correction of Sentence. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence. (b) Reduction of Sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. Changing a sentence from a sentence of incarceration to a grant of probation shall constitute a permissible reduction of sentences under this subdivision.”

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

3. “We are not overlooking the fact that a District Court can — as it always could since the passage of the Probation Act— place a convicted defendant on probation as to certain counts of an indictment or information, and sentence him to imprisonment on others, but it is our opinion if it is to be done it must be done upon “entering a judgment of conviction” and before the defendant — has commenced the execution of judgment and sentence terminating the case. Nothing that is said in this opinion is to be taken or understood as intimating that there is anything invalid or improper in a sentence which requires imprisonment under one or more counts of an indictment and provides for probation on others.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 549 F. Supp. 657 - United States v. Fortner