United States v. Roy E. Kramer, United States of America v. Matthew Breen’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.2d 891 · 1966
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably United States v. Enmons (1973), United States v. Campanale (1975)
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Stirone v. United States · Opper v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama · Singer 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may not be surmised that the jury would have been inflamed or that the publicity attendant such a disclosure would have prevented the jury from making a fair assessment of the evidence against [defendant]. The hypothetical prejudice does not give rise to the exceptional situation which might render impartial trial by jury unlikely or impossible, thereby furnishing a compelling reason for rejecting the government’s insistence on its right to consent to the waiver under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Title 18 U.S.C.A. * * 355 F.2d at 899”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The test of interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act differs from that under the Sherman Act. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 732 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1625 , 12 L.Ed.2d 498 . Similarly, decisions construing the interstate commerce requirement under the Fair Labor Standards Act are not controlling as to the requisite manner or degree of interference with commerce that may justify conviction under the Hobbs Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the charge under the Labor Act is based on a coercive demand or request by a representative of employees, this conduct may also constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act. The fact that the same conduct may give rise to separate and independent violations of law does not render the charges of convictions based thereon inconsistent or mutually exclusive.”
1 later decision 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.