United States v. Murray B. Baker and Victor O. Gates, Sr. Murray B. Baker, United States of America v. Murray B. Baker and Victor O. Gates, Sr. Victor O. Gates, Sr.’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 107 · 1966
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2005
5 federal appellate · 3 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 Blackburn v. Alabama · Brookhart v. Janis · Edwards v. South Carolina · Pinder v. United States · Forte 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This bill is designed to prevent the easy interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia. Federal laws which are designed to suppress traffic in lottery tickets in interstate or foreign commerce have been on the statute books since 1895 ( 18 U.S.C., secs. 1301 , 1305). These statutes make illegal the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of “any paper, certificate or instrument purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance, share, or interest in or dependent upon the event of a lottery ...” Under the proposed bill, it would be a felony to send or carry knowingly in interstate or foreign commerce any wagering paraphernalia or device adapted or designed for use in bookmaking, wagering pools with respect to a sporting event, or numbers, policy, bolita, or similar game. The violation carries with it a penalty of a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The language of the proposal make[s] clear that it will include slips, papers, or paraphernalia which may be used in a lottery scheme not yet in existence or already completed. It also bans the interstate transportation of slips recording the accounts and numbers bet in a numbers lottery and betting slips and other material utilized in a bookmaking operation. The game known as bingo does not come within the scope of this bill, however.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“wherein a prize is awarded to the person holding the ticket, the number or name upon which corresponds to that on the counterfoil or ticket stub drawn at random from a container in which have been placed the stubs of all the tickets distributed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. (1998)
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.