Pilgrim v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
266 F.2d 486 · 1959
Citation profile
53 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably United States v. Cardillo (1963), Odom v. United States (1967)
53 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Texas v. New Mexico · United States v. Bucur · Schwachter v. United States · United States v. Gordon · Brubaker 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he fact that Pilgrim might have been unaware that the stolen car was transported in interstate commerce is not vital. The Dyer Act is violated when one receives a stolen automobile with knowledge of its theft even if he is unaware that it has been transported in interstate commerce.” 266 F.2d at 488 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Possession of the fruits of crime recently after its commission justifies the inference that the possession is guilty possession, and, though only prima facie evidence of guilt, may be of controlling weight unless explained by the circumstances or accounted for in some way consistent with innocence. It is a question for the jury whether the inference of appellant’s guilty reception of the automobile was overcome by the explanation.’ ””
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.