Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 437 F.2d 1 - United States v. Hull

United States v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis

437 F.2d 1 · 1971

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably United States v. Niver (1982), United States v. Pozos (1983)

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1401971198019902000decided

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. § 2312

Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Preston v. United States · Walder 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The test is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the trial judge, as trier of facts, in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is to determine whether such findings are supported by any substantial evidence. It is not our function to make credibility choices or to pass upon the weight of the evidence. The test is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the trial judge, as trier of the facts, in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty... . 3”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Since United States v. Turley it has been settled that the Dyer Act was never intended to incorporate or to depend upon technical property concepts. Instead it was broadly intended to deal with knowing interstate transportation following any unlawful taking; it proscribes felonious interference with legal possession.”
    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.