United States v. Covington’s Empirical Analysis
411 F.2d 1087 · 1969
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably United States v. Somers (1974), United States v. Kramer (1983)
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Robert Edwards, Max Jakob, John J. Lombardozzi and Milton Parness · Land v. United States · Cunningham 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * we held in Tincher v. Boles, [ 364 F.2d 497, 498 (4th Cir. 1966)] that “any prosecution under a subsequent indictment would be foreclosed if the offense charged was one which would have supported a conviction under the earlier indictment.” 364 F.2d at 498 . The transcript of Covington’s trial is available and, should it ever be necessary to do so, it may readily be determined from that transcript whether a newly charged offense was one “which would have supported a conviction under the earlier indictment.” Moreover, enough of the facts are narrated here to afford protection, and it seems unlikely that Federal Second will soon disappear.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Defendant’s theory at trial was that he was innocent because of his ownership of the alleged stolen vehicle. He never questioned the element of transportation in July 1966. This is not a case where the time of the alleged offense was disputed at trial. Had that been the situation, a claim of fatal variance prejudicing the preparation of a defense might have been valid. [Footnote omitted.]”
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.