Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.2d 79 - United States v. Gibson

United States v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.2d 79 · 1962

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably Leary v. United States (1969), Turner v. United States (1970)

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

38019621970198019902000decided

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. § 3500

Relies on Costello v. United States · Hem v. United States · United States v. Hernandez · Caudillo v. United States · United States v. Mont

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

  1. ““Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, * * and then provides: “Whenever on trial for violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “did not offer evidence as to the violation of [one of the] statute[s], and the trial court did not convict on that basis”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.