United States v. Margraf’s Empirical Analysis
483 F.2d 708 · 1973
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1993
15 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2277 · 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 18 U.S.C. § 3402 · 26 U.S.C. § 5812 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. Petrillo · Lambert v. People of the State of California · United States v. Freed
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The primary purpose of this legislation is to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so as to extend Federal criminal laws to certain acts committed on board aircraft — -in particular, such acts as aircraft “hijacking”, murder, manslaughter, assault, maiming, carrying concealed deadly or dangerous weapons, and stealing personal property. . . . ’ ‘Recent events have demonstrated the urgent need for stronger Federal laws applicable to criminal acts committed aboard commercial and private aircraft.’ ‘The provisions of this legislation, it will be noted, are based on the use of criminal sanctions as a deterrent to the commission of criminal acts. . . . ’ ‘Broad, stringent legislation such as is proposed here, cannot, of course, prevent piracy of aircraft, but it is to be hoped that the enactment of laws providing stiff penalties for various crimes in air commerce will deter all except the hopelessly unbalanced from risking life and liberty in such undertakings.’ H.R.Rep. No. 958, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), 1961 U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News 2563.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The presence of these factors here plus the strong contrast between paragraph (Z) and 49 U.S.C. § 1472 (m) compel us to hold that paragraph (Z) does not contain a specific intent requirement. Paragraph (m) was passed by Congress at the same time as paragraph (Z). The fact that paragraph (m) contains an express intent requirement is particularly convincing evidence that Congress did not intend such a requirement for paragraph (Z). That the maximum penalties for violating paragraph (Z) are much less than those for violating paragraphs (i) and (j) is also an indication that no specific intent is necessary for a violation of paragraph (Z).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Appellant] claims that it is necessary for the government to prove a specific intent to carry a ‘concealed deadly or dangerous weapon’ onto a plane in order for a defendant to be convicted. In other words, it is not sufficient for the government to show that a defendant was boarding a plane with a concealed deadly weapon on his person; it must go further and show that the defendant was aware that his weapon was dangerous, and knowing this, still intended to carry the weapon aboard.” Id. at 709 (emphasis added).”
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.