United States v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
299 F.2d 625 · 1962
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968), United States v. Gibson (1982)
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 17 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
Relies on De Moss v. United States · Holder v. United States · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong · Geach v. Illinois · Henderson 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consent, connivance, procurement or knowledge”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground, merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court." (e.s.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The gist of the crimes charged in the indictment, as in most Securities Act cases, is the fraudulent scheme employed in the sale of securities. (Citations omitted.) The purpose of the requirement that there be a use of the mails or other facilities of commerce is solely to create a basis for federal jurisdiction. (Citations omitted.) The use of the mails need not be central to the fraudulent scheme and may be entirely incidental to it. (Citations omitted.) Indeed, in the very case before us the only alleged use of the mails was to confirm purchases already induced by the defendants’ deceit.””
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.