United States v. Markis’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.2d 860 · 1965
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Keeble v. United States (1973), State v. Whistnant (1980)
50 federal appellate · 12 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 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 7262 · 26 U.S.C. § 7608 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Escobedo v. Illinois · United States v. Ventresca · Morissette v. United States · Spies v. United States · Harris 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mere fact that the jury was still free to disbelieve this portion of the agent’s testimony does not elevate the issue to a truly ‘disputed’ one; in the language of the Model Penal Code § 1.07(5) (1962), it does not provide ‘a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense.’ Model Penal Code § 1.08 comment, at 42-43 (Tent. Draft No. 5, 1956). This hits the essential point. The lesser-included offense charge is not required simply because the jury could exercise its power of acquitting on the greater charge for no reason at all ‘in the teeth of both law and facts’ * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The attack on the arrest warrant based on the point that, in obvious error, the complaint alleged Markis had committed the offense three days in the future requires no discussion. * * * A complaint, like affidavits supporting a search warrant, must be read `in a commonsense and realistic fashion.' * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Faltynowicz
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.