United States v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
482 F.2d 1393 · 1973
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1994 · most notably Bray v. United States (1975), Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. New England Petroleum Corp. (1979)
12 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. Robinson · Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. · Reed v. Kroger Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA) lacks jurisdiction of this appeal. Section 211(b)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (ESA) provides that the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals shall have “exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from the district courts of the United States in cases and controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder.” 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note (1977 supp.). Section 5(a)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 754 , incorporates and carries forward this grant of special jurisdiction. The district court’s July 18 order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment is not a “case or controversy arising under the EPAA, as amended.” The Title 18 offenses charged in the indictment are not actions giving rise to TECA jurisdiction even if connected with “We do not believe that the charge in Count 1, based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , arises within the appellate jurisdiction of the TECA. We start with the premise that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 would be appealable only to a court of appeals, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , unless the Stabilization Act provides otherwise. We find nothing in Section 211(b)(2) of the Act which so provides. Section 211(b)(2) speaks of ‘controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder.’ We do not think that Count 1, being based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , was a controversy ‘arising under’ any title of the”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The basic holding in these cases is that, if at a time when a party might take a timely appeal, he receives assurances from the district court that he need not appeal [Thompson], or that time for appeal is extended [Harris], then he should not lose his right to appeal where the district court was in fact mistaken. But in our case the appellant Cooper was in no way misinformed or misled by the district court. Thus the cases above are inapposite.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[I]f at a time when a party might take a timely appeal, he receives assurances from the district court that he need not appeal ..., or that time for appeal is extended ..., then he should not lose his right to appeal where the district court was in fact mistaken.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.