United States v. Bruton’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.2d 905 · 1969
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably United States v. Christian (1970), United States v. Hull (1971)
26 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Turley · Miller v. United States · Stewart v. United States · Bouchard v. United States · Schwab 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As we said in Stewart v. United States, 395 F.2d 484, 490 (8th Cir. 1968): “The interpretation of the Dyer Act has resulted in numerous decisions involving its reach, the definition of its terms, and, as a matter of fact, the definition of nearly every word contained therein. These decisions evidenced a divergence of views in the various circuit courts, which resulted in the granting of certiorari by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 , 77 S.Ct. 397 , 1 L.Ed.2d 430 (1957), which involved an alleged violation of the Dyer Act. * * *” Judge Blackmun, speaking for this court in Schwab v. United States, 327 F.2d 11, 13 (8th Cir. 1964), interpreted United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 , 77 S.Ct. 397 , 1 L.Ed.2d 430 (1957), as standing for the proposition that the statute is violated with something less than permanency and something less than a deprival of the totality of ownership. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is no answer that the owner of the car was protected by the fact that a credit card was used in the procurement of the car and that either the holder or issuer of the credit card would be responsible for the rental and damage. Restitution from whatever source cannot act as a shield against prosecution or conviction for law violation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * “Stolen” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2312 includes all felonious takings of motor vehicles with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether or not the theft constitutes common-law larceny.’ 352 U.S. at 417 , 77 S.Ct. at 402 .””
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.