Thomas v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““The difficulty with appellant’s position is that he assumes the lead stolen by him on twelve separate occasions and sold by him on twelve separate different occasions * * * is in reality but twelve transactions, involving but twelve amounts of lead. This is not so, from the record before us. Appellant is not so charged. The thefts of which appellant was convicted occurred on twelve separate dates between December 1, 1953, and November 1, 1954. The sales of which he was convicted were on certain dates between December 9, 1953, to November 1, 1954 * * *. That each sale did not constitute exactly what was last previously stolen is established beyond doubt * * *. Thus there were properly charged against appellant twenty-five different acts, each prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 641 , and for each of which appellant was convicted.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

2. ““ * * * the test of identity of offenses is generally stated to be ‘whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that both charges relate to and grow out of one transaction does not make a single offense where two are defined by the statute.’ ” Thomas v. United States, 249 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1957), quoting from Rayborn v. United States, 234 F.2d 368 (6th Cir. 1956), which in turn quotes from Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632 , 641, 35 S.Ct. 712 , 715, 59 L.Ed. 1153 (1915).”

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