Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 F.2d 1205 - United States v. Vanderpool

United States v. Vanderpool’s Empirical Analysis

528 F.2d 1205 · 1975

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
January 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2021

7 federal appellate ·

50197519801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · United States v. Maze · United States v. Sampson · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Adams v. Maryland

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “there is adequate circumstantial evidence to show authorization due to the fact that the representations were substantially similar to those made by defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'(a)voidance of detection and prevention of recovery of money lost by the victims are within, and often a material part of, the illegal scheme.'”
    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.