United States v. Manuszak’s Empirical Analysis
234 F.2d 421 · 1956
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Mims v. United States (1967), 41 Cal. 3d 714 - People v. Figueroa (1986)
74 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 659
Relies on Hagner v. United States · Bollenbach v. United States · United States v. Debrow · Bryan 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * A partial direction of the verdict occurs when the court determines an essential fact, and this denies the appellant trial by jury. See Bollenbach v. United States, 1946, 326 U.S. 607 , 66 S.Ct. 402 , 90 L.Ed. 350 ; United States v. Gollin, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 123 , 125-126; United States v. Raub, 7 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 312 , 315-316; Carothers v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 718 , 722.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““For this reason the count is a nullity as a charge of a federal crime and should be quashed. The defect is not one of form which will be overlooked after a verdict when no prejudice is shown. Although after a verdict every intendment should be indulged in support of the count, neither the verdict nor the evidence supporting the verdict can be used as a basis for dispensing with the rule that the indictment must state all the essential ingredients of the crime.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever embezzles, steals or unlawfully takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud or deception obtains from any pipeline system, railroad car, wagon, motortruck, or other vehicle, or from any tank or storage facility, station, station house, platform or depot or from any steamboat, vessel, or wharf, or from any aircraft, air terminal, airport, aircraft terminal or air navigation facility with intent to convert to his own use any goods or chattels moving as or which are a part of or which constitute an interstate or foreign shipment of freight, express or other property; or “Whoever buys or receives or has in his possession any such goods or chattels, knowing the same to have been embezzled or stolen * * * * * * •Jé * * *X* * * “Shall in each case be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. yy”
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.