Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 312 U.S. 19 - Gorin v. United States

Gorin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

312 U.S. 19 · 1941

Citation profile

397
cited by 397 later decisions
44
cited 44 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

167 federal appellate · 45 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 397 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Screws v. United States (1945), Von Moltke v. Gillies (1948)

167 federal appellate · 45 district · 32 state decisions

720194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedGorin v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Stromberg v. People of State of California · Gunning v. Cooley · Nash 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 397 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[W]e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring ‘intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.” 312 U.S. at 27-28 , 61 S.Ct. at 433-434 .”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The statute is explicit in phrasing the crime of espionage as an act of obtaining information relating to the national defense ‘to be used * * * to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ No distinction is made between friend or enemy. Unhappily the status of a foreign government may change. The evil which the statute punishes is the obtaining or furnishing of this guarded information, either to our hurt or another’s gain.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defense, ... or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, or stored ...”
    2 later decisions 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.