McDaniel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
343 F.2d 785 · 1965
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably United States v. Doyle (1965), United States v. Evans (1978)
84 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1732
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Palmer v. Hoffman · Kann v. United States · Parr v. United States · United States v. Sampson
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evil at which the Securities Act is directed is fraud in the sale of securities. That being the congressional purpose and intendment to be covered, the impact of fraud in relation to sales should be considered in making practical application of the Act to a given set of facts. In other words, a scheme to defraud in relation to a sale of securities, and the use of the mails in consummation thereof, is the gist of the crime. The use of the mails need not be central to the scheme to defraud. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 , 83 S.Ct. 173 , 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962); Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 , 74 S.Ct. 358 , 98 L. Ed. 435 (1954); United States v. Sheridan, 329 U.S. 379 , 67 S.Ct. 332 , 91 L.Ed. 359 (1946), reh. den. 329 U.S. 834 , 67 S.Ct. 628 , 91 L.Ed. 706 ; United States v. Cashin, 281 F.2d 669 (2 Cir. 1960); United States v. Monjar, 47 F.Supp. 421 (D.C.Del.1942), aff’d 147 F.2d 916 (3 Cir. 1944), cert. den. 325 U.S. 859 , 65 S.Ct. 1192 , 89 L.Ed. 1979 (1945).” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he right of confrontation may not be invoked to exclude evidence otherwise admissible under well-established legitimate exceptions to the hearsay rule. Kay v. United States, 255 F.2d 476 , 4 C.C.A. (1958); Matthews v. United States, 217 F.2d 409 , 5 C.C.A. (1954); United States v. Leathers, 135 F.2d 507 , 2 C.C.A. (1943); 5 Wigmore, Evidence, 1397.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* « * The distinction is of some importance since the trial judge has an area of discretion in determining admissibility of documents as business records, and a case affirming an exclusion is not necessarily authority to reverse for an admission.””
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.