Amer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 803 · 1966
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2000 · most notably Crosswhite v. State (1968), Kress v. United States (1969)
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Bell v. United States · Morgan v. Devine · Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Monaghan · Castle 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'happenstance of bank transmission procedure[.]'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The test long accepted for determining whether there is an identity of offenses is “whether the same evidence is required to sustain them”. Morgan v. Devine, 1915, 237 U.S. 632, at 641 , 35 S.Ct. 712, 715 , 59 L.Ed. 1153 . See, also, Wilburn v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 903 ; Rayborn v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 368 . Because in the instant case the indictment rests upon four separate negotiations of forged instruments, each of which caused a security to be transported in interstate commerce, it is clear that had there been no pleas of guilty and the case gone to a jury trial, separate evidence would have been required to establish each count. When this identity of offenses test is viewed in light of the established principle that causing the transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities suffices as a basis of prosecution, it appears evident that appellant caused four distinct transactions which resulted in four separate units of prosecution. [Emphasis in original].”
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.