United States v. Kates’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.2d 308 · 1975
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably United States v. Vento (1976), United States v. Wexler (1988)
34 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Falcone · Michigan National Bank v. Michigan · United States v. Andolschek · Sears 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“211 App. at 191a-193a. 212 As this court said in United States v. Kates, 508 F.2d 308 , 310-11 (3d Cir.1975): 213 It is imperative, however, that we keep in mind the essential nature of what a conspiracy is in general and what this particular conspiracy was proven to be. It is well established that the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a conspiracy case has a heavy burden.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When one of the conspiring movers desired a particular job, he would determine what his own estimate would be and would then contact two other movers in the conspiracy and ask them to submit “courtesy bids” higher than his so that he would be the low bidder. When he learned that RDA would solicit a fourth bid, he would ask that mover to submit an inflated bid also. Often, he would pay a cash bribe, equal to ten percent of the estimated cost, to Edward Cavanaugh, RDA’s Deputy Director of Commercial Relocation, so that the latter would select one of the conspirators as the fourth bidder. The mover who obtained this particular contract would reciprocate by submitting “courtesy bids” on contracts sought by other conspiring movers. He would also make further cash payments of five percent each to two RDA inspectors, Jack Simons and Leland Lamar, so that he could inflate his costs to bring them up to the estimate.”
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.