Perry v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““Nor is there any basis for the final contention that for a single act he has been improperly convicted of two offenses. Where the same transaction violates two distinct statutory provisions, the question of whether two offenses have been committed is based on whether each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632 , 35 S.Ct. 712 , 59 L.Ed. 1153 ; Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 ; Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1 , 47 S.Ct. 250 , 71 L.Ed. 505 . Here, the count for working in a distillery, 26 U.S.C. § 2831 , required proof that there was no sign on the premises indicating this to be a registered distillery, while the count for making mash, 26 U.S.C. § 2834 , required no such proof. Conversely, the mash count required proof of fermenting mash, while the count for working in a distillery required no proof of mash. This was not, then, an effort to make two wrongs from a single act. Fleisher v. United States, 6 Cir., 91 F.2d 404 , reversed on other grounds 302 U.S. 218 , 58 S.Ct. 148 , 82 L.Ed. 208 . Appellant was charged with having done two different things and was found guilty on sufficient evidence of both.””

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