United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 1200 · 1975
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. McCoy (1976), United States v. DiMuro (1976)
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 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. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 891
Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Perez v. United States · Cole v. United States · United States v. Chavez · Snow v. Commissioner
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[line information is] the ‘odds’ or ‘handicaps' or ‘point spreads’ on the wagered contests. This information is usually provided in a list of the teams and events with a certain number of points attributed to the nonfavored team. To win a bet on the favored team, therefore, that team must win by a score exceeding the point spread given to the nonfavored team. The ‘line’ is subject to change as a given event approaches and a bookmaker may alter the ‘line’ on a particular event in order to try and even out the money wagered on each side.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“illegal gambling activities of major proportions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n proving that five or more persons were involved in the operation of the business, it is not necessary to prove that anyone other than defendant has been charged with an offense or that the same five people, including the defendant, owned, financed, or conducted such gambling business throughout more than a thirty-day period, or even that the defendant knew the names or identities of any given number of people who might have been so involved. A defendant need not know that the activity engaged in was composed of five or more participants, but must only “conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of’ the gambling business to be guilty of this offense where the gambling business meets the second, third, and fourth elements of the offense. A mere bettor or customer of a gambling business is not involved in the operation of the business, and therefore cannot be counted as one of the five or more persons necessary to prove this element of the offense. However, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is a bookmaker and that he regularly exchanges line information, or regularly places or accepts layoff bets with another bookmaker, you may consider that as evidence that the defendant and the other bookmaker are members of the same gambling business. In determining whether people are linked for the purpose of determining whether they are members of the same illegal gambling business, you must look at the evidence as a whole. The relationship bet”
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.