McGee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 434 · 1968
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1996 · most notably United States v. Ash (1973), United States v. Bennett (1969)
92 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 2314
Relies on United States v. Wade · Gregory v. United States · Salley v. United States · Holt 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the conclusiveness of identification has been challenged, it is incumbent upon the court to call attention to the fact that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant on trial who had committed the acts as alleged”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, will be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When it is demonstrated that, viewing the evidence in this context, there was sufficient evidence on each element of the offense from which the jury could find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will be sustained.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The evidence presented here established that the two money orders had been stolen at a time when they were completely blank. Subsequently, these previously blank money orders came into the hands of the appellant. At this time they either were, or had been fraudulently completed and made payable to one John L. Price. Using the name of the fictitious payee, appellant cashed these admittedly forged money orders after presenting numerous identification cards as proof of his being the individual named in the instruments. We would ignore reality if we were to conclude that there was not ample evidence from which the jury could infer, as indeed it did, that the appellant had a sufficient connection with the fraudulently completed money orders to be held to possess the necessary guilty knowledge.””
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.