United States v. Borelli’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 500 · 1970
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably United States v. Calabro (1972), United States v. Burke (1983)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 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. § 2113
Relies on Cardillo v. United States · Wenzler v. Pitchess · Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson · Granello Et Al. v. United States · United States v. Kahaner
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is that persons jointly indicted should be tried together ‘where the indictment charges . . . a crime which may be proved against all the defendants by the same evidence and which results from the same or a similar series of acts.’ United States v. Kahaner, 203 F.Supp. 78 , 80-81 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff’d, 317 F.2d 459 (2d Cir), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836 , 84 S.Ct. 74 , 11 L.Ed.2d 65 (1963).” United States v. Borelli, 435 F.2d 500 , 502 2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 963 , 28 L.Ed.2d 229 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Such a rule [permitting joinder] conserves judicial resources, alleviates the burdens on citizens serving as jurors, and avoids the necessity of having witnesses reiterate testimony in a series of trials.”
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.