United States v. Conte’s Empirical Analysis
349 F.2d 304 · 1965
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably United States v. Reifler (2006), United States v. Bohr (1978)
22 federal appellate ·
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. § 1343
Relies on Hirabayashi v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama · Laskey Bros. of West Virginia, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Arizona v. California
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[A] party to an interstate or foreign ... telephone conversation is transmitting sounds in interstate or foreign commerce even though the call may have been placed by another person calling him.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.