Hanf v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
235 F.2d 710 · 1956
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1994
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 27 U.S.C. § 201 (Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988) · 27 U.S.C. § 203 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act)
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Wickard v. Filburn · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · United States v. Darby · Simpson v. Shepard
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Defenses and Objections Which Must Be Raised. Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense may be raised only by motion before trial. The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant. Failure to present any such defense or objections constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shaE be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the-proceeding. Orim.R. 12(b) (3) requires that the motion be made before the plea is entered, but the court may permit it to be made-within a reasonable time thereafter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Selman v. State · State v. LaPlante““We know of no rule that renders an indictment duplicitous because it charges as one joint offense a single completed transaction instead of charging in separate counts as many offenses as the evidence at the trial might conceivably sustain.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The sufficiency of an indictment should be judged by practical, and not by technical, considerations. It is nothing but the formal charge upon which an accused is brought to trial. An indictment which fairly informs the accused of the charge which he is required to meet and which is sufficiently specific to avoid the danger of his again being prosecuted for the same offense should be held good.” (Emphasis presently supplied.) See also Hanf v. United States, 8 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 710 , 713-714, certiorari denied, 352 U.S. 880 , 77 S.Ct. 102 , 1 L.Ed.2d 81 ; and Keys v. United States, 8 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 181 , certiorari denied, 316 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 1296 , 86 L. Ed. 1764 .”
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.