Panci v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

92 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. “"The declarations of one conspirator made in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy, and during its existence, are admissible against all members of the conspiracy. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 , 12 S.Ct. 617 , 36 L.Ed. 429 . But a defendant's connection with a conspiracy cannot be established by the extra-judicial declarations of a co-conspirator, made out of the presence of the defendant. There must be proof aliunde of the existence of the conspiracy, and of the defendant's connection with it, before such statements become admissible as against a defendant not present when they were made. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 74 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680, 701 ; Minner v. United States, 10 Cir., 57 F.2d 506 ; May v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 233 , 175 F.2d 994 ; United States v. Nardone, 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 41 , reversed on other grounds, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 ". (Emphasis in text).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Orser v. United States · United States v. Apollo

2. ““The government might have made out a ease if, in the ordinary way so often successfully used in informer type cases, the agents had given the informer marked or otherwise identified money, had searched him carefully before he left on his mission to insure that he had no narcotics concealed on or about him, had kept him in sight at all times so as to exclude his having obtained the narcotics elsewhere, and then made the arrest to find the identified money in the possession of the defendant and the narcotics in that of the informer. Nothing of that kind ivas done here. Instead the government brought and testified to its case with no more real support in the evidence for a finding of guilt than there was for the finding that a ghost had been seen in the story of the man who said, ‘My friend saw a ghost eating off a plate at his house last night, and if you don’t believe it, here is the plate he says he saw the ghost eating from’.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foster v. United States · Virdie L. Smith v. Brookshire Brothers, Inc.

3. ““[W]e think it clear beyond question that the admission of the hearsay testimony fatally impregnated the case with prejudicial and reversible error.” Panci v. United States, 256 F.2d 308 , 311 (5th Cir. 1958). See also Harlow v. United States, 301 F.2d 361 , 368-369 (5th Cir. 1962); Montford v. United States, 200 F.2d 759 , 761 (5th Cir. 1952).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Penn v. United States