United States v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
368 F.2d 537 · 1966
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably United States v. Feola (1975), United States v. Hooper (1970)
45 federal appellate · 2 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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1114
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Pettibone v. United States · United States v. Truesdell · United States v. Lombardozzi · Bennett 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the statute does not proscribe reasonable force employed in a justifiable belief that it is exerted in self-defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Title 18, § 111 prescribes a penalty for a forcible assault upon or interference with a federal official as defined in § 1114 while the official is ‘engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties.’ The statute contains no words which can reasonably be said to require that the actor know at the time that the victim of the assault, or the person with whom he interferes is a federal officer engaged in his official duty.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Any intentional and unlawful threat or attempt to commit injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability so to do, and an intentional display of force such as to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, striking, or committing bodily harm to another.” “Any intentional use of force upon the person of another, which results in unlawful touching of another, constitutes a battery. “Unlawfully, as used in this instruction, means either contrary to law or without legal justification. “Thus a person who, in fact, has the present ability to inflict bodily harm upon another, and willfully threatens or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon such person, may be found guilty of forcibly assaulting such person. “The essential elements required to be proved in order to establish the offense charged in the indictment are, first, the act or acts of forcibly assaulting an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation while the agent was engaged in the performance of his official duties as charged; and secondly, doing such act or acts willfully, which means with bad purposes, to disregard the law.””
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.