United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 833 · 1976
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Castillo (1988), United States v. Fleishman (1982)
117 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3481 · 18 U.S.C. § 3503 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 959
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Bruton v. United States · Jackson v. Denno
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]cts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“enumerated several criteria which there indicated whether the requisite “satisfactory basis” for the jury’s determination is present: (1) [T]he declaration contained no [express] assertion of a past fact, and subsequently carried a warning to the jury against giving it undue weight; (2) the declarant had personal knowledge of the identity and role of participants in the crime; (3) the possibility that the declarant was relying upon faulty recollection was remote; and (4) the circumstances under which the statements were made did not provide reason to believe that the declarant had misrepresented the defendant’s involvement in the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Seo. 1009. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II— (1) intending that such substance be unlawfully imported into the United States; or (2) knowing that such substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States. This section is intended to reach acts of manufacture or distribution committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
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.