Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 446 F.2d 998 - United States v. Evans

United States v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

446 F.2d 998 · 1971

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2002

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

1001971198019902000decided

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 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)

Relies on In re Disbarment of Allison · Walker v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Kramer · Churder v. United States · United States v. Bolin

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Moreover, in order to reach the conclusion that the act of the taker determines the receiver’s penalty, the phrase “for the taker” must be read “for the taker [of such bank property].” We do not think that this is what Congress meant. Rather, we believe that Congress used the word “taker” in the general sense, not referring to the actual taker, but to a hypothetical one. In using the phrase “for the taker” in its hypothetical sense, Congress intended to incorporate the penalty provisions of subsection (b) into subsection (c). Thus, to determine a receiver’s penalty, focus must be placed upon the penalty to which the taker would be subject for taking the amount received, not upon the amount taken by the taker. 446 F.2d at 1001 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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.