Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 F.2d 758 - Wall v. United States

Wall v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

384 F.2d 758 · 1967

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
5
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Dallago v. United States (1969), United States v. Harris (1971)

52 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

350196719701980199020002010decided

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. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 503 · 28 U.S.C. § 515 · 28 U.S.C. § 543

Relies on Holland v. United States · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Curley v. United States · Boesche v. Udall

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In deciding a motion for acquittal the trial judge determines whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there is substantial evidence from which a jury might reasonably find that an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule does not encroach on the presumption of innocence. It recognizes the procedure by which the presumption may be overcome.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The appellants say that the jury could not have considered the evidence, and particularly their defense, because it took but one hour of deliberations to reach a verdict in a case which had taken eight days of trial. We know of no rule which requires a jury to deliberate for any particular period of time. From our study of the record we can well understand why the jury took no longer in coming to a decision. Its verdict must stand.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The statute is for the protection and benefit of the government to prevent the assertion of unauthorized claims. We see no jurisdictional problem. The proceedings were initiated by, and the trial was under the control of, the United States Attorney.””
    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.