Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,560 United States of America v. David B. Charnay’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.2d 341 · 1976
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Giese (1979), United States v. Bohonus (1980)
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Morissette v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whenever an indictment is dismissed for any error, defect or irregularity with respect to the grand jury, ... a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, if no regular grand jury is in session . . . , within six calendar months of the date of when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Herlands article concluded it was necessary only that “the prosecution establishes a realization on the defendant’s part that he was doing a wrongful act,” 21 Va.L.Rev. at 149. We accept this with the qualifications, doubtless intended by the author, that the act be wrongful under the securities laws and that the knowingly wrongful act involve a significant risk of effecting the violation that has occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hentzner v. State““These criteria are, first, whether the indictment ‘contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, “and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet,” ’ and secondly, ‘ “ ‘in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction’.” [Citations omitted.]’ ””
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.