Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 F.2d 1307 - United States v. Schaefer

United States v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis

510 F.2d 1307 · 1975

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 1996
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1996 · most notably Sanabria v. United States (1978), United States v. Vento (1976)

55 federal appellate · 2 district ·

490197519801990decided

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. § 1511 · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Blumenthal 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Bjookmaking is not a precise science, * * * while the most common instance of lay off betting occurs when there is an imbalance of bets and wagers on a given sporting event, and while its usual effect is to distribute among various bookmakers the imbalance, thus minimizing the risk of substantial loss to any one bookmaker, one could not say, as a matter of law that such is the only instance of laying off.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted; (ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and (iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The interdependence of the various individual components, including the sharing of line information and the exchanging of profits through layoff betting, outweighs the “independent businessmen” theory urged by appellants and satisfies us that there was one “illegal gambling business” here for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 . * * *”
    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.