Krogmann v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.2d 220 · 1955
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably United States v. Crosby (1961), Silverthorne v. United States (1968)
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Michelson v. United States · Rogers v. United States · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Hyde v. United States · Johnson 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It could very well be that questioning of the jury would be more prejudicial than helpful. * * * Under the circumstances there was a rebuttable presumption that the rights of the appellant were prejudiced. The district Judge should have taken such steps as were considered necessary by him to rebut that presumption, and if not convinced that the presumption had been rebutted, to have declared a mistrial.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In addition, the offense charged was complete upon the payment of the money to [the bribee] with the intent to influence his action with respect to the sale of surplus property. The evidence was sufficient to show that appellants were interested in the surplus property at Oak Ridge and made the payments for the purpose of influencing [the bribee’s] action with respect to such property. Whether the attempt was successful or what the officer did in attempting to perform his side of the bargain are accordingly immaterial. Wolf v. United States, 6 Cir., 292 F. 673 , 675; Curtis v. State, 113 Ohio St. 187 , 191, 148 N.E. 834 ; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, 4th Edition, Sec. 715.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The crux of the offense is the intent to influence an official decision. The statute requires that the employee be acting for the Government in an “official function” and that the matter in which his decision is to be influenced be “before him in his official capacity.””
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.