Leib v. Halligan’s Empirical Analysis
236 F. 82 · 1916
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1993
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 United States v. Weber · United States v. Kuhl · United States v. Williams · United States v. Conners · United States v. Sprague
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.
“Possession of the instrument being positively prohibited by statute, guilty intent is not an essential element of the offense, and there is no necessity for any specific intent or motive except the intention to use or sell”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LETHBRIDGE
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.