Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
253 F.2d 24 · 1958
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably United States v. Smith (2000), United States v. Jeter (1985)
27 federal appellate ·
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 Holland v. United States · United States v. Di Re · Hagner v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · United States v. Debrow
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant disregards the fact that the indictment in the present case contains more than the allegation that defendants conspired to “carry on the business of retail liquor dealers.” Prior to that allegation the indictment charges that the defendants conspired to commit certain acts “made offenses against the United States of America by Section 5691, Title 26 United States Code.” This reference to a specific section of the statutes was sufficient to meet the test that the indictment must sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, that the record show with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 , 431, 52 S.Ct. 417 , 76 L.Ed. 861 ; United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374 , 378, 74 S.Ct. 113 , 98 L.Ed. 92 . See also: Kempe v. United States, 8 Cir., 151 F.2d 680 , 684; United States v. Goldberg, 8 Cir., 225 F.2d 180 , 183, 185; Contreras v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 96 ; Reynolds v. United States, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 123 ,125.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““wilfully * * * conspire * * * and agree together and with each other to commit certain acts made offenses against the United States of America by Section 5691, Title 26 United States Code, to-wit, carry on the business of retail liquor dealers, and said defendants did commit acts to effect the object of said conspiracy.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in order for an indictment to be valid it must allege all of the elements which are necessary to constitute a violation of the statute.”
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.