Koolish v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.2d 513 · 1965
Citation profile
150 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently July 1985 · most notably United States v. Kelly (1965), United States v. S. Lawrence Kahn, Arthur B. Sachs and M. Prial Curran (1967)
150 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Dunn v. United States · Nye & Nissen 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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are fully satisfied from an examination of the tremendous record here that substantial evidence supports the jury finding that there was an overall conspiracy to defraud and to obtain money and property from the Kenny Foundation and its donors, that each of the appellants cooperated with the others and each knowingly joined in the conspiracy, and that use of the mails to defraud was established in furtherance of the overall objective. It is immaterial whether or not there were minor conspiracies or schemes inside the overall conspiracy to obtain money from the Kenny Foundation and its contributors through false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises and that some of the defendants participated in some of these inner or smaller schemes but not in all of them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The charts and summaries referred to were based upon substantial evidence introduced by the government through its own witnesses or in cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses. All were subject to cross-examination or re-examination by defendants’ counsel. The jury was very carefully and fully instructed as to their use. We find no error in their receipt. The admission of charts and summaries is a matter which rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and its action in receiving the disputed charts and summaries may not be reversed by an appellate court unless such discretion be abused.” 340 F. 2d 533 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adrian v. Edstrom
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.