Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 F.2d 113 - Fiano v. United States

Fiano v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

291 F.2d 113 · 1961

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
July 1994
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1994 · most notably United States v. Spada (1964), Marcella v. United States (1965)

25 federal appellate ·

2101961197019801990decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Reserve Life Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. · Wisconsin v. Illinois · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Maloy v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of West Palm Beach · United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co.

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

  1. ““COUNT TWO (U.S.C., Title 21, Sec. 174) “On or about November 30, 1958, in Los Angeles County, California, within the Central Division of the Southern District of California, defendants ANTHONY MARCELLA, MARIE ROSE SANTINO and MATTHEW SANTINO knowingly and unlawfully received, concealed, transported and facilitated the concealment and transportation of one pound of heroin, a narcotic drug, which, as the defendants then and there well knew, previously had been imported into the United States of America contrary to United States Code, Title 21, Section 173.””
    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.