Hendrix v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 federal appellate · 4 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I think that the case of United States v. Gardner, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 753 , is not apposite here. What was said in that case was unnecessary to the decision, was pure dictum, and predicated on a supposed analogy with the case of a stolen motor vehicle recovered before it crossed the state line; that is to say, a case where there was no transportation in interstate commerce. Such was not the case here. “It is true that Corlew had sent the check to his own bank in Pascagoula which refused to accept it; and he had doubts whether the check was good even while his employee was going to the bank with the check. Corlew’s account of his mental attitude with respect to the ultimate payment of the check is not at all points entirely consistent; but he did send it to Mobile and he testified as follows: “ ‘Q. You sent it to Mobile to see if it was good? “ ‘A. Yes hoping it was.’ “This the jury had the right to believe and the proof that Sykes ‘caused’ the check to be transported to Mobile within the meaning of the Pereira case, supra, is not affected by the fact that Corlew had his fingers crossed when he sent it through.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Carl Howard Carter, Lester Murphy Hayes, Alfredo S. Desphy. Carl Howard Carter · United States v. Cartek

2. ““Moreover, since the indictment charged Hendrix as an aider and abettor as well as a principal, there can be even less doubt about the propriety of the jury’s finding that Hendrix was guilty of the offense as charged. In order to sustain the conviction of a defendant who had been charged as an aider or abettor, it is necessary that there be evidence showing an offense to have been committed by a principal and that the principal was aided or abetted by the accused, although it is not necessary that the principal be convicted or even that the identity of the principal be established.” (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pigman v. United States · Ray v. United States

3. ““While questions of identity are ordinarily for the jury and testimony as to identity need not be positive and certain * * * there must be something more than the testimony of a resemblance * * *.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Luck