United States v. Cutting’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.2d 835 · 1976
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009 · most notably Marks v. United States (1977), United States v. Valle-Valdez (1977)
18 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1461 · 18 U.S.C. § 1462 · 19 U.S.C. § 1305 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Miller states that the questions of what appeals to the “prurient interest” and what is “patently offensive” under the obscenity test which it formulates are “essentially questions of fact.” [Citation omitted.] “When triers of fact are asked to decide whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would consider certain materials ‘prurient’ it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The acts underlying the indictment and trial took place before the 1973 and 1974 obscenity decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellants are therefore entitled to have their convictions measured against the standards of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 , 86 S.Ct. 975 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966), unless they would benefit by application of the Supreme Court’s more recent decisions. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 102, 94 S.Ct. 2887 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); United States v. Jacobs, 513 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974). It is a general rule that a change in the law which has occurred after a relevant event in a case will be given effect while the case is on direct appeal. Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 102 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 ; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 627, 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). That rule applies here, and thus the judgments of conviction also must be substantively ex amined in the light of the principles laid down in the more recent cases. Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 102 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“‘But the enumeration of specific categories of material in Miller which might be found obscene did not purport to make criminal, for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 , conduct which had not previously been thought criminal.’ Hamling v. United States, supra 418 U.S., at 116 , 94 S.Ct., at 2907 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.