United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 6 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably United States v. Bell (1982), United States v. Brown (1965)
74 federal appellate · 6 district · 40 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 15 U.S.C. § 20 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on United States v. Wiltberger · United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co. · Dunlop v. United States · Minneapolis St Louis Railway Company v. United States · United States v. Weitzel
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that a particular activity may be within the same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the criminal prohibition.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is doubtful that this indictment ... alleges anything more in substance than a bribe. Bribery might well be in the family of offenses covered under a conflict of interest statute. But it is more remote from an antitrust frame of reference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This case was decided below and argued here on the assumption that, although the indictment itself was sufficient against a motion to dismiss, it became insufficient for that purpose by reason of the bill of particulars. We have held, however, that ‘the bill of particulars * * * forms no pari of the record for the purposes of the demurrer.’ United States v. Comyns, 248 U.S. 349, 353 , 39 S.Ct. 98 , 63 L.Ed. 287 (emphasis supplied); Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486 , 17 S.Ct. 375 , 41 L.Ed. 799 . Since the parties have made no attempt to invoke this rule at any stage in this proceeding, we are not required to express any view as to whether this rule for demurrers is applicable on motions to dismiss under Rule 12, Fed.Rules Crim. Proc.” United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad, supra, at 159 note 1. 85 S.Ct. at 869.”
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.