United States v. Kramer’s Empirical Analysis
289 F.2d 909 · 1961
Citation profile
158 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 247 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Ashe v. Swenson (1970), Dowling v. United States (1990)
158 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 1361 · 18 U.S.C. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2115
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Yates v. United States · Abbate v. United States · United States v. Bayer
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 247 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" 'The Government is free within the limits of the Fifth Amendment,... to charge an acquitted defendant with other crimes claimed to arise from the same or related conduct; but it may not prove the new charge by asserting facts necessarily determined against it in the first trial, no matter how unreasonable the Government may consider that determination to be.’ ” Wingate, supra at 214 , quoting from Kramer, supra at 916. (Emphasis added).”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]onviction for receiving, concealing and retaining stolen goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 would require proof of something other than participation in the theft —indeed, proof of that would be fatal to a conviction for receiving.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]o permit the Government to force a defendant who has won an acquittal to relitigate the identical question on a further charge arising out of the same course of conduct, selected by the Government from the extensive catalogue of crimes furnished it in the Criminal Code, would permit the very abuses that led English judges to develop the rule against double jeopardy long before it was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment ... and still longer before the proliferation of statutory offenses deprived it of so much of its effect.... The very nub of collateral estoppel is to extend res judicata beyond those cases where the prior judgment is a complete bar. The Government is free, within the limits set by the Fifth Amendment, ... to charge an acquitted defendant with other crimes claimed to arise from the same or related conduct; but it may not prove the new charge by asserting facts necessarily determined against it on the first trial, no matter how unreasonable the Government may consider that determination to be." 289 F. 2d at 916 (citations and footnote omitted) (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions 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.