Schwab v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.2d 11 · 1964
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably William C. Drummond v. United States of America, Alphonse Vincent Castaldi v. United States (1965), Sanitary Milk Producers v. Bergjans Farm Dairy, Inc. (1966)
36 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Lutwak v. United States · Michelson v. United States · United States v. Turley · Mesarosh v. United States · Public Service Commission 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The breadth of the Turley precedent demands a conclusion that the statute may be satisfied with something less than permanency and something less than a deprival of the totality of ownership.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are fully satisfied, under all the circumstances here, that no improper prejudice to the defendant could possibly have resulted from the prosecution’s questioning. Four felony convictions were definitely * * admitted. * * * The questions [as to two other unproved convictions] were aimed at material which at worst was nothing more than cumulative. '* * * There is no intimation of bad faith on the part of the prosecution. * * * This defendant is not free of past crime. His adroit testimony shows he is not dull or ignorant. He has a substantial list of admitted felony convictions. Bringing these out constituted a vigorous, allowable, and, no doubt, telling attack on his credibility. The additional inquiries certainly. added nothing, by way of dramatic adverse impact. We are able to say with conviction that they did not sway or influence this jury and we ignore reality if we were to hold that the supplemental questions constituted reversible error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is significant that in none of the other cases which have adopted the broader definition of the term ‘stolen’ has the court indicated that an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property is an essential element of the crime.... I am convinced that while the defendants may not have formed a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property, they did intend to deprive him of his property for so long as it suited their purposes.””
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.