Torres v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 252 · 1959
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Ungar v. Sarafite (1964), United States v. Bentvena (1963)
76 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Heflin v. United States · Avery v. State of Alabama · Prince v. United States · Wilson v. United States · United States v. Sherman
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It would seem that common to all of those eases affirmed on this question there existed some affirmative action on the part of the defendant which indicated guilty knowledge. Such acts as attempts to conceal the goods, sale of the goods at ridiculously low prices, obliteration of serial numbers or identifying marks on the goods, or contradictory stories concerning how the defendant happened to obtain the goods in the first place, have been held sufficient circumstances from which a jury can properly draw an inference of knowledge that the goods were stolen. It would seem fair to say that in each of the cases affirmed the actions on the part of the defendant were such that no reasonable person would have done them unless he suspected that there was something ‘wrong’ with the goods.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever * * * steals, or unlawfully takes, carries away * * * from any * * * platform * * * with intent to convert to his own use any goods or chattels moving as or which are a part of or which constitute an interstate * * * shipment of freight or express; or “Whoever buys or receives or has in his possession any such goods or chattels, knowing the same to have been * * * stolen; * * * “Shall in each case be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; but if the amount or value of such * * * goods or chattels does not exceed $100 he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, 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.