Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 F.2d 289 - King v. United States

King v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

402 F.2d 289 · 1968

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
4
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably United States v. Esparsen (1991), Kogan v. People (1988)

71 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

47019681970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Will v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · United States v. Williams · Hicks v. United States · United States v. Garguilo

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

  1. “"The trial court properly instructed the jury, in substance, that to be guilty of aiding and abetting by words spoken or acts done the defendant must wilfully associate himself in some way with the criminal venture by participating in it as something he wishes to bring about and by seeking to make it succeed by some action on his part. [Citations omitted] Mere presence at the scene of the crime with knowledge that the crime is being committed will not suffice to constitute aiding and abetting unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant was doing something to forward the crime and that he was a participant rather than merely a knowing spectator. [Citations omitted]"”
    2 later decisions 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.