Rivard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.2d 882 · 1967
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Postal (1979), United States v. Honneus (1974)
58 federal appellate · 5 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3237
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Ford v. United States · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Harris 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law of nations permits the exercise of [extraterritorial] criminal jurisdiction by a nation under five general principles. They are the territorial, national, protective, universality and passive personality principles.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“International law recognizes five general principles whereby a sovereign may exercise this prescriptive jurisdiction: (1) territorial, wherein jurisdiction is based on the place where the offense is committed; (2) national, wherein jurisdiction is based on the nationality or national character of the offender; (3) protective, wherein jurisdiction is based on whether the national interest is injured; (4) universal, which amounts to physical custody of the offender; and (5) passive personal, wherein jurisdiction is based on the nationality or national character of the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he conspiring was directed to violation of the United States law within the United States, by men within and without it, and everything done was at the procuration and by the agency of each for the other in pursuance of the conspiracy and the intended illegal importation. In such a case all are guilty of the offense of conspiring to violate the United States law whether they are in or out of the country.”) (emphasis added); United States v. Inco Bank & Trust Corp., 845 F.2d 919 , 920 (11th Cir.1988) (”
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.