Tot v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
319 U.S. 463 · 1943
Citation profile
657 federal appellate · 93 district · 738 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,960 later decisions (155 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Kotteakos v. United States (1946)
657 federal appellate · 93 district · 738 state decisions — followed in 45 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Tot (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 901
Relies on Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Chambers v. Florida · Wilson v. United States · Hem v. United States
Cited together with Leary v. United States · United States v. Gainey · United States v. Romano · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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 1,960 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rational connection between the facts proved and the fact presumed.”
82 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence or is a fugitive from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this Act.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Both courts below held that the offense created by the Act is confined to the receipt of firearms or ammunition as a part of interstate transportation and does not extend to the receipt, in an intrastate transaction, of such articles which, at some prior time, have been transported interstate.””
5 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.