Gilinsky v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
368 F.2d 487 · 1966
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 1995 · most notably United States v. Phillip L. Rogers, United States of America v. Charles Spotts (1973), United States v. Driscoll (1972)
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Bell v. United States · United States v. Sheridan · Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Monaghan · Castle v. United States · Gilinsky 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he repeated coincidence of time and place at the inception, during the intermediate stages and at the conclusion of the transportation, make it clear that the checks comprised two distinct units and that each unit was transported in commerce at a different time than the other. Unlike Strickland v. United States, 325 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1964), no gap exists in the proof to render this conclusion a mere possibility and “at best speculative.” 2 * ***** Additionally, the district court appeared to rest decision upon an alternative ground that the transportation of each check would constitute a separate offense even if all the checks were shipped simultaneously in commerce. The statute itself does not nicely delineate the allowable unit of prosecution; it provides in loose terms that transportation of “any falsely made * * * securities” constitutes a punishable offense and nowhere makes clear whether Congress intended the word “any” to be broadly inclusive or narrowly restricted in meaning. However, there can be no real doubt regarding the proper construction of this particular penalizing provision. * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“repeated coincidence of time and place at the inception, during the intermediate stages and at the conclusion of the transportation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“proscribes not the passing but rather the transportation of forged checks.”
2 later decisions 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.