United States v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.2d 1253 · 1972
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Rone (1979), United States v. Hernandez-Miranda (1979)
75 federal appellate · 1 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 26 U.S.C. § 5821 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5871 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · United States v. Bass · Bell v. United States · Gore v. United States · Heflin 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he mere existence of these two purposes does not permit us to affirm. We are not allowed to look for an intent that reasonably could be imputed to Congress, nor are we permitted to construe the Act in a way that we believe will best accomplish evident statutory purposes. Rather, when it comes to the imposition of harsh criminal penalties, we must look for “a clear indication that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments for a single transaction.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue is not whether Congress could have authorized the imposition of cumulative sentences for the offenses with which Clements was charged. There is no constitutional impediment to Congress’ authorizing cumulative sentences for a single act that may violate more than one statute when the offenses created by the statutes are not identical. The offenses with which Clements was charged are not identical because a different set of ultimate facts is necessary to sustain a conviction under each count. * * * The difference between the ultimate facts necessary to prove failure to pay a tax and failure to register is obvious. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case, all of the offenses charged are rooted in one legislative enactment (the 1952 amendment), and there is nothing in the history of that enactment, the history of the prior provisions upon which it was modeled, or the history of subsequent recodifications of the law which clearly suggests that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments for the single transaction involved.”
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.