United States v. Hark’s Empirical Analysis
320 U.S. 531 · 1944
Citation profile
241 federal appellate · 8 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 396 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Robinson (1960), Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis (1978)
241 federal appellate · 8 district · 33 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 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. · United States v. Grimaud · United States v. Oppenheimer · United States v. Chambers · United States v. Tynen
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 396 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Where, as here, a formal judgment is signed by the judge, this is prima facie the decision or judgment rather than a statement in an opinion or a docket entry. * * * The judge was conscious, as we are, that he was without power to extend the time for appeal. He entered a formal order of record. We are unwilling to assume that he deemed this an empty form or that he acted from a purpose indirectly to extend the appeal time, which he could not do overtly. In the absence of anything of record to lead to a contrary conclusion, we take the formal order of March 31 as in fact and in law the pronouncement of the court's judgment and as fixing the date from which the time for appeal ran.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he judgment of a court is the judicial determination or sentence of the court upon a matter within its jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The reason for the common law rule that the repeal of a statute ends the power to prosecute for prior violations is absent in the case of a prosecution for violation of a regulation issued pursuant to an existing statute which expresses a continuing policy, to enforce which the regulation was authorized. Revocation of the regulation does not repeal the statute; and though the regulation calls the statutory penalties into play, the statute, not the regulation, creates the offense and imposes punishment for its violation.”
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.