United States v. Sabella’s Empirical Analysis
272 F.2d 206 · 1959
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Sanabria v. United States (1978), United States v. Kramer (1961)
65 federal appellate · 4 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. § 3231 · 26 U.S.C. § 7237 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (§ 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Ball v. United States · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Lauritzen v. Larsen · Gore 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant may not later be tried again on that same fact situation, where no significant additional fact need be proved, even though he be charged under a different statute.” At 212.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is some degree of unreality in a claim that a convicted defendant who has been in jail has not been in jeopardy. Indeed, such a contention has been characterized as ‘in the vein of The Mikado,’ King v. United States, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 10 , 98 F.2d 291, 293 . Nevertheless we take it as true that not only an acquittal but also a conviction ‘before a court having no jurisdiction is, of course, like all proceedings in the case, absolutely void, and therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offense.’ (Citations omitted).” 272 F.2d at 208-209 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Baldwin“meant in the double jeopardy context. We found that jeopardy had attached in that case even though the federal conviction on which the jeopardy depended was under a federal law that did not provide the district court the power to pronounce a sentence for its violation. Judge Friendly stated that: 24 [T]he District Court did have jurisdiction in the basic sense that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boyd v. Meachum
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.