Green v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
274 F.2d 59 · 1960
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Kuklis v. Commonwealth (1972), State v. Boudreau (1974)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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. § 2113
Relies on United State v. Morgan · Rodriguez v. New York · Prince v. United States · Holiday v. Johnston · Cook 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have understood that Rule 35 “is for the correction of illegal sentences, ‘those that the judgment of conviction did not authorize,’ United States v. Morgan, 1954, 346 U.S. 502 , 506, 74 S.Ct. 247 , 250, 98 L.Ed. 248 , not for the correction of improper convictions. ‘A motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35 presupposes a valid conviction and affords a procedure for bringing an improper sentence into conformity with the law.’ Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 567 , 570, certiorari denied, 1949, 336 U. S. 926 , 69 S.Ct. 647 , 93 L.Ed. 1088 .” Green v. United States, 1 Cir., 274 F.2d 59 , at page 60, affirmed 365 U.S. 301 , 81 S.Ct. 653 , 5 L.Ed.2d 670 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Strictly, consecutive or otherwise, we hold that petitioner should have received only a single sentence. But we do not agree with him that by the imposition of the 20-year sentence on Count 1 the court ‘exhausted its power’ to go any further. Many cases have discussed the general problem of an erroneous number of sentences, applying various theories, but, it has been pointed out, ‘in every instance the sentence on the count which carried with it the greater penalty was held valid.’. . . We concur in that result.””
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.