United States v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis
431 F.2d 7 · 1970
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably United States v. Hearst (1977), United States v. Wagner (1987)
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brubaker v. Dickson · Wade v. United States · Byrd v. United States · Sauer v. United States · Sullivan 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "might constitute plain error which may be considered on direct appeal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““With respect to crimes such as charged in this case, specific intent must be proved before there can be a conviction. “Specific intent, as the term itself suggests, requires more than a mere general intent to engage in certain conduct. “A person who knowingly does an act which the law forbids, or knowingly fails to do an act which the law requires, intending with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law, may be found to act with specific intent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“I have to take the alcohol out of the formula because that was voluntary, and if I take it out ... it leaves only this organic brain defect, and as I indicated before, I find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that organic brain defect alone did not deprive this defendant of substantial capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his conduct nor ... of substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”
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.