Montos v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 39 · 1958
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1999 · most notably United States v. Jalili (1991), Hash v. Henderson (1967)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 4082
Relies on United State v. Morgan · Aderhold v. Edwards · Bowen v. United States · Bugg v. United States
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He, however, argues that here the concurrency provision went to the intent of the court as to the length of the sentence. We disagree. The length of the sentence was clear, distinct and definite. Montos was ordered to serve seven years but at his own request the District Court was willing to let him serve that seven years while he was serving his state court sentence. Thus the concurrency provision did nothing more than attempt to designate the place of confinement. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the length of the sentence. Designation of the place of confinement is no part of a judicial sentence; Aderhold v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 297 , 298; Bowen v. United States, 10 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 323 , 324; and is nothing more than surplusage. Bugg v. United States, 8 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 848 , 851-852.” 261 F.2d at page 40.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A person convicted of an offense against the United States shall be committed, for such term of imprisonment as the court may direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, who shall designate the place of confinement where the sentence shall be served. (b) The Attorney General may designate as a place of confinement any available, suitable, and appropriate institution or facility, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise, and whether within or without the judicial district in which the person was convicted, and may at any time transfer a person from one place of confinement to another. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the designation of the place of confinement is exclusively for the Attorney General”
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.