Duke v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
255 F.2d 721 · 1958
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably United States v. Dellinger (1972), United States v. Halbert (1981)
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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. § 42 · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1461 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1654 · 42 U.S.C. § 264 · 42 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Berra v. United States · United States v. Beacon Brass Co. · Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is any conflict between the statute and the regulation, the former prevails.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court admitted the record of a telephone conversation held during the progress of the trial between Duke and Buono, both defendants on one side, the government witness Hadzima, on the other. The recording was made by Duke (the defendant). The trial record is confused, but Duke is apparently now claiming that he was prevented from cross-examining Had-zima as to the conversation. * * The ruling of the court gave him everything to which he was entitled, since the jury had the whole record and were entitled to judge thereby the credibility of this witness.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.””
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.