United States v. Parness’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 430 · 1974
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Fisher v. Vassar College (1997), Bennett v. Berg (1982)
83 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Griffin v. California · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Nye & Nissen v. United States · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Eisenstadt v. Baker
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he defendants were not required to testify or to present any case at all, and the jury could not permissibly draw an adverse inference simply from their failure to take the stand. But the self incrimination clause does not elevate a defendant's silence ... to the level of convincing refutation. When a defendant has offered no [credible explanation], it may be reasonable for a jury to draw inferences from the prosecution's evidence which would be impermissible if the defendant had supplied a credible explanation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Enterprise” is defined in section 1961(4) to include “any . . . corporation.” On its face the proscription is all inclusive. It permits no inference that the Act was intended to have a parochial application. The legislative history, moreover, strongly indicates the intent of Congress that this provision be broadly construed.”
2 later decisions 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.