Lauer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““INDICTMENT “The Grand Jury charges: “That on or about September 24, 1962, at Indianapolis, in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana, Ronald K. Dennis, the defendant herein, did knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully sell a narcotic drug as defined in Title 26, United States Code, Section 4731 (a), to-wit: 450 milligrams, more or less, heroin hydrochloride, not in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom said narcotic drug was sold on a form issued in blank for that purpose by The Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate, in violation of Title 26 of United States Code, Section 4705(a).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ewell · 242 F. Supp. 166 - United States v. Dennis

2. ““This cause came on for hearing before the Court upon the petitioner’s Motion for Relief under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A. filed January 28, 1964; the petitioner’s Supplemental Motion and Brief filed April 8, 1964; and the respondent’s Brief in Opposition filed April 9, 1964. Based upon the motion and briefs submitted, the petitioner’s contention is that the indictment upon which he was sentenced and convicted was so defective on its face as to be insufficient to authorize the Judgment of Conviction, since the indictment and record failed to disclose the name of the purchaser to whom he was alleged to have sold the narcotics and he would, therefore, be unable to plead the Judgment as a bar in any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. In response to such assertion, the respondent claims that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the petitioner was prejudiced in any way by virtue of the indictment and record omitting the name of the purchaser and the indictment was sufficient under the general principles of law by which it must be tested. “The parties having stipulated and agreed that the record in Cause No. IP-62-Cr-191 be admitted and read into evidence, and the Court having read and examined the briefs of both parties and having heard the arguments of counsel, and being duly advised in the premises, does submit its: FINDINGS OF FACT “1. The petitioner is now and was at the time of instituting this action an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Ter”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 242 F. Supp. 166 - United States v. Dennis

3. ““On this 2nd day of April, 1963, came the attorney for the Government and the defendant appeared in person and without counsel, having heretofore waived counsel. The Court now vacates defendant’s waiver of counsel, and appoints George Rich, a member of the bar of this Court, to represent him. “The defendant having been convicted upon his plea of guilty of the offense of, on or about September 24, 1962, knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully selling a narcotic drug, not in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom said narcotic drug was sold on a form issued in blank for that purpose by the Secretary of State, in violation of Title 26 U.S.C. Section 4705 (a), as charged in the Indictment, and the defendant having on December 19,1962, been committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. 4208 (b) for imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years and for a study as described in 18 U.S.C. 4208 (c), and the Court having now received and considered the report of such study, and following the recommendations of the Bureau of Prisons, “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the period of imprisonment be reduced to Five (5) years. “IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk deliver two certified copies of this Order Modifying Judgment to the United States Marshal or other qualified officer. /s,/ William E. Steckler United States District Judge””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 242 F. Supp. 166 - United States v. Dennis