United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
412 F.2d 381 · 1969
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Higdon (1987), United States v. Natale (1975)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Prince v. United States · Nilva v. United States · 129 F. Supp. 684 - United States v. Baker
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A taking, or an attempted taking, ‘by intimidation’ must be established by proof of one or more acts or statements of the accused which were done or made, in such a way or manner, and under such circumstances, as would produce in the ordinary person fear of bodily harm.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The handing of similar notes to bank tellers is a familar modus operandi of both armed and unarmed bank robberies. * * *. The fact that this teller called for help instead of handing over money, keeps this case an attempt. The method used has often induced a bank teller to part with cash, for the circumstances do not admit of an examination to determine whether the man at the window is armed or not. The very presence of a man, having a note, who assures the teller, `Do as I say, and there won't be any trouble', infers that failure to do as ordered is an invitation to trouble. Defendant intended to get money from the teller by intimidation. * * That she did not respond as defendant expected, saves defendant from having committed the robbery he planned, but does not wipe out his overt acts wilfully done as an endeavor to do or perform and, hence, an attempt to commit, a bank robbery." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. State“"The overt act of demanding money accompanied by a threatening gesture of any type intended to intimidate could reasonably be viewed as either evidence of the attempted robbery itself, or as evidence of the perpetrator's intent to commit a felony. The party accousted or threatened does not have to be put in fear of his life, only intimidation need be shown along with a demand for funds to satisfy the first paragraph of § 2113(a)...." [8]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. State
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.