McBride v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.2d 249 · 1955
Citation profile
33 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably D. H. Roe and Stratoray Oil, Inc. v. United States (1961), McClanahan v. United States (1956)
33 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 494 · 26 U.S.C. § 50
Relies on United States v. Murdock · Boyd v. United States · Linder v. United States · Browder v. United States · Townsend 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) General requirement. — It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give away narcotic drugs except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary or his delegate. ***** “(c) Other exceptions. — Nothing con-tained in this section, section 4735, or section 4774 shall apply— “(1) pise of drugs in professional practice. — To the dispensing or dis-tribution of narcotic drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, veterinary surgeon, or other practitioner registered under section 4722, in the course of his professional practice only: Provided, That such physician, dentist, veterinary surgeon, or other practitioner shall keep a record of all such drugs dispensed or distributed, showing the amount dis-pensed or distributed, the date, and the name and address of the patient to whom such drugs are dispensed or distributed, except such as may be dispensed or dis-tributed to a patient upon whom such physician, dentist, veterinary surgeon, or other practitioner shall personally at-tend; and such record shall be kept for a period of two years from the date of dispensing or distributing such drugs, subject to inspection, as provided in seetion 4773.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““You are further charged that the word ‘knowingly’ means with knowledge and that wilfulness is an element of the offense charged and is necessary for the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully and knowingly submitted a false statement or document. To prove this element it is not necessary that the Government prove that the defendant in fact had an evil intent. The word ‘wilful’ means no more than that the forbidden act is done deliberately and with knowledge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court here fell into the error of not distinguishing between the elements of an offense, where the statute simply denounces the doing of an act as criminal, and where it denounces as criminal only its willful doing. In the first class of cases, especially in those offenses mala prohibita, the law imputes the intent. * * * In the second class of cases, a specific wrongful intent, that is, actual knowledge of the existence of obligation and a wrongful intent to evade it, is of the essence.”
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.