United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
434 F.2d 827 · 1970
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Anderson (1976), United States v. Parnell (1978)
58 federal appellate · 2 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. § 472 · 18 U.S.C. § 474 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Raynor · United States v. Porter · Bouchard v. United States · Reid 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““fraudulent obligation bears such a likeness or resemblance to . genuine obligations or securities ... as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible or unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“on the issue of the quality of the counterfeit, that is, whether [the bogus item] is in fact an imitation in resemblance of a genuine obligation of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever prints, photographs, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such obligation or other security, or any part thereof, or sells any such engraving, photograph, print, or impression, except to the United States, or brings into the United States, any such engraving, photograph, print, or impression, except by direction of some proper officer of the United States . . . [sjhall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both, (emphasis added). Count III of the indictment charged: EDDIE EVERETT GONZALES, CECIL CHARLES STINE, ROBERT EDWARD KIL-PATRICK . . on or about May 16, 1975, at Tucson, Arizona, in the District of Arizona, did print, photograph and execute an engraving, photograph, print and impression in the likeness of an obligation issued under the authority of the United States, to-wit: a $100 denomination Federal Reserve Note, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 474.”
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.