United States v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 438 · 1977
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2003 · most notably United States v. Abel (1984), United States v. Pedro M. Gonzalez-Sanchez, United States of America v. Carlos Latorre, United States of America v. Manuel Parrilla-Marquez (1987)
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 2113
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Frank v. Mangum · Ristaino v. Ross · Taylor v. United States · Zanfardino 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clearly, that same issue of fact had been before the jury in the perjury case and must necessarily have been resolved by the jury in favor of Brown. He therefore could not be required to 'run the gantlet a second time.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. .. the narrow question before the trial jury, realistically, was whether he [Brown] had lied about his noninvolvement in the conspiracy. The jury must have believed his testimony; it could not have grounded its verdict upon any other issue.” 547 F.2d at 442 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the issue in the- first trial was narrow, however, and acquittal necessarily resolved an essential factual issue in a subsequent trial, collateral estoppel has been applied to reverse a conviction in the subsequent trial. See Turner v. Arkansas, 407 U.S. 366 , 92 S.Ct. 2096 , 32 L.Ed.2d 798 (1972); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Johnson v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1024 , 95 S.Ct. 2619 , 45 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975); McDonald v. Wainwright, 493 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Nash, 447 F.2d 1382 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v. Kramer, 289 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1961); United States v. Simon, 225 F.2d 260 (3rd Cir. 1955); Cosgrove v. United States, 224 F.2d 146, 158 (9th Cir. 1955); Erlich [Ehrlich] v. United States, 145 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1944).”
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.