Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 F.2d 900 - Wiley v. United States

Wiley v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

257 F.2d 900 · 1958

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
December 1989
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 1989 · most notably United States v. Mandujano (1974), United States v. Pelton (1978)

51 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2501958196019701980decided

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. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. · Gebardi v. United States · United States v. Manton · United States v. Krulewitch

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

  1. ““ * * * It is well settled that the purpose for which the interstate transportation is induced may be inferred from the conduct of the parties within a reasonable time before and after the transportation. United States v. Reginelli, 3 Cir., 133 F.2d 595 , 598. ‘Obviously an accused will not himself disclose his intent. Hence it is well settled that it may be discovered elsewhere, as from evidence of other similar activities of the accused * * United States v. Pape, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 778 , 781. ‘ “Where the intent of the parties is a matter in issue, it has always been deemed allowable * * to introduce evidence of other acts and doings of the party, of a kindred character, in order to illustrate or establish his intent or motive in the particular act directly in judgment.” * * * “Relevant and competent evidence of guilt is not rendered inadmissible because it also tends to prove that the defendant committed another offense.” ’ Tedes-co v. United States, 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 737 , 740. Intent, motive or purpose necessary for the establishment of a crime may rest in inference and may be proved by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Reginelli, supra, 133 F.2d 595 -598.””
    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.