Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 546 F.2d 658 - United States v. Sidney Levine and Mpd Film Productions, Inc.

United States v. Sidney Levine and Mpd Film Productions, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

546 F.2d 658 · 1977

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

110 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Lane (1986), United States v. Phillips (1981)

110 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

66019771980199020002010decided

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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Kotteakos v. United States · Roth v. United States · Pereira v. United States · 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[F]or a wheel conspiracy to exist, those people who form the wheel's spokes must have been aware and must do something in furtherance of some single, illegal enterprise. If not, there is no rim to enclose the spokes.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “are alleged to have participated ... in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where, however, the defendant can show that the charge of a joinder of defendants in conspiratorial action is based on a legal interpretation that is improper, the court cannot base its 8(b) ruling on the written words alone but must determine if, under correct legal theory, joint action was actually involved.”
    2 later decisions 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.