Nye & Nissen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 613 · 1949
Citation profile
2,224 federal appellate · 63 district · 253 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,948 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Pereira v. United States (1954), Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994)
2,224 federal appellate · 63 district · 253 state decisions — followed in 26 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
reviewedNye & Nissen v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 550
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Bollenbach v. United States · United States v. Dotterweich
Cited together with Glasser v. United States · United States v. Peoni · Pinkerton v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Jackson v. Virginia
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 2,948 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.”
117 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. “(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is argued in the second place that the trial court erred in admitting against Moncharsh evidence of crime similar to those charged in the substantive counts to prove the guilty intent with which the substantive acts were committed. Each of the six substantive counts charged the presentation of a separate false invoice. The evidence showed the presentation of eleven other false invoices. This was part of the evidence received in support of the conspiracy count. The trial court also admitted it at the conclusion of the case ‘for the sole purpose of proving guilty intent, motive, or guilty knowledge’ of the defendants. Evidence that similar and related offenses were committed in this period tended to show a consistent pattern of conduct highly relevant to the issue of intent.””
2 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.