United States v. Bolin’s Empirical Analysis
423 F.2d 834 · 1970
Citation profile
33 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably United States v. Roselli (1970), United States v. Gardner (1975)
33 federal appellate ·
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. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 2315 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Boykin v. Alabama
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; * :¡: * -I. :!• “Shall be fined not more than $10,-000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $100, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. “The word ‘value’ means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 725 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The present form of the statute avoids difficult problems of proof. In many cases, a receiver initially may have had substantially more than $100 in his control. Nevertheless, at the time of his arrest only a small part of the money can be traced to him. He may have quickly passed it on to confederates or unsuspecting parties. Or he may have so commingled it with his own funds that $100 of stolen money cannot be identified. * * * * * * Appellant’s reading of the statute would seriously hamper the effective enforcement of the federal bank robbery laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“That this was the purpose of the 1948 amendment is clearly indicated by the re visor’s note: Also the provisions of subsection (b) measuring the punishment by the amount involved were extended and made applicable to the receiver as well as the thief. There seems no good reason why the thief of less than $100 should be liable to a maximum of imprisonment for one year and the receiver subject to [ten] years. [Historical & Revision Notes, following 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 ].”
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.