Jackson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
311 F.2d 686 · 1963
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 1988
19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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 Stirone v. United States · Walder v. United States · Scott Paper Co. v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. · United States v. Stirone · United States v. Sawyer
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant also asserts that on the basis of a number of cases, he was a mere agent and cannot therefore be held guilty. But this misapprehends the whole idea of those decisions. As we pointed out in Coronado v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 719 , the question is ‘whether the accused acted as a participant in the sale on behalf of the buyer or on behalf of the seller.’ No case has yet held the agent of the seller excused by the act of a knowing delivery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Q On or about November 11, 1961, tell us whether or not you delivered a quantity of narcotics to one Thelma Hayes ? “A Yes, I did. ****** “Q Was that your only connection with this package, when he gave it to you and asked you to deliver it to her? “A Yes, sir. “Q Now you did know what it was ? “A Yes, sir.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. It failed to allege that heroin was a narcotic drug, and that the defendant, knew the heroin had been imported unlawfully. 2. It identified the purchaser by description as a special employee of the-Bureau of Narcotics, rather than by-name. 3. The special employee designation-was a false description.”
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.