Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 369 F.2d 130 - Katz v. United States

Katz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

369 F.2d 130 · 1966

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 1981
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1981

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

140196619701980decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1084 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203

Relies on Olmstead v. United States · Marron v. United States · Silverman v. United States · Lopez v. United States · Goldman 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitled the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
    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.