Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 U.S. 540 - United States v. Raynor

United States v. Raynor’s Empirical Analysis

302 U.S. 540 · 1938

Citation profile

281
cited by 281 later decisions
45
cited 45 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 21 district · 67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 281 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably United States Marcus v. Hess (1943), Salinas v. United States (1997)

102 federal appellate · 21 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 18 states

770193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRaynor v. United States (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States · Lamar v. United States · United States v. Resnick · United States v. Giles

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

  1. “No rule of construction ... requires that a penal statute be strained and distorted in order to exclude conduct clearly intended to be within its scope....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““The fact that Congress revised and codified the criminal laws after the Court of Appeals in the case of Krakowski v. United States, 2 Cir., 161 F. 88 , held that the act only prohibited possession of the distinctive paper does not detract from the soundness of this conclusion. One decision construing an act does not approach the dignity of a well settled interpretation. * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “A construction that creates an inconsistency should be avoided when a reasonable interpretation can be adopted which will not do violence to the plain words of the act, and will carry out the intention of Congress.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.