Continental Baking Company v. United States of America, American Bakeries Company v. United States of America, Colonial Baking Company of Memphis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he [district] court charged that a corporation could be held criminally liable for the acts of its managerial agents “done on behalf of and to the benefit of the corporation and directly related to the performance of the duties the employee has authority to perform ... By a managerial agent I mean an officer of the corporation or an agent of the corporation having duties of such responsibility that his conduct may fairly be assumed to represent the corporation.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. · 406 F. Supp. 60 - United States v. Hangar One, Inc.

2. ““There in some support for this type of instruction in the lower court decisions [citations omitted], but the better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect.” [Citations omitted.] “Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.” (348 U.S. at pages 139, 140, 75 S.Ct. at pages 137, 138)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bisno v. United States

3. ““However, such declarations are admissible over the objection of an alleged co-conspirator, who was not present when they were made, only if there is proof aliunde that he is connected witli the conspiracy. Minner v. United States, 10 Cir., 57 F.2d 506 ; and see Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426 , 23 L.Ed. 286 . Otherwise, hearsay would lift itself by its own bootstraps to the level of competent evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.