United States v. Barrow’s Empirical Analysis
363 F.2d 62 · 1966
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Rewis v. United States (1971), United States v. Dent (1998)
70 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Wong Sun v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Silverthorne Lumber Co. 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Whoever * * * uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail, with intent to— * * * * * * (3) * * * promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. (b) As used in this section ‘unlawful activity’ means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling * * * offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed * * * »”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The crime of conspiracy, is seldom susceptible of proof by direct evidence. Proof of the crime may rest as it frequently does, on indirect or circumstantial evidence. The existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from evidence of related facts and circumstances from which it appears, as a reasonable and logical inference, that the activities of the participants in the criminal venture could not have been carried on except as the result of a preconceived scheme or common understanding.” (citations omitted)— p. 64. (emphasis added)”
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.