Willard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.2d 810 · 1970
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 1995 · most notably Martin McNally v. The Pulitzer Publishing Company and Ted Gest (1976), McCord v. Bailey (1980)
17 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. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Relies on Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Sealfon v. United States · Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen Helpers of America v. United States · Huth v. Southern Pacific Co.
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.
“rule is not changed by the fact that the (civil) action is brought by the person convicted in the prior criminal action ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“■ Although we need not put it categorically in such terms, the factual background from the prior proceeding gained added significance through notions akin to collateral estoppel. The issues were in practical effect identical. Once determined between essentially the same parties, reexamination is not permitted. Of course, it is beyond question that a prior criminal proceeding can have a collateral estoppel effect in the subsequent civil action. . . . This general rule is not changed by the fact that the action is brought by the person convicted in the prior criminal action instead of the usual case where the government brings civil action to recover damages subsequent to a criminal conviction. Id. at 811-812 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meadows v. Evans
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.