Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 F.2d 59 - United States v. Garguilo

United States v. Garguilo’s Empirical Analysis

554 F.2d 59 · 1977

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
4
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably United States v. Margiotta (1982), United States v. Prince (2000)

19 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

1601977198019902000decided

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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206

Relies on Stirone v. United States · Russell v. United States · Bain Jr · United States v. District Court · United States v. Johnson

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the prosecutor has attempted to rely at the trial upon theories and evidence that were not 'fairly embraced in the charges made in the indictment.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]y failing to object to the introduction of the evidence on capital gains, by conceding that the capital gains could properly be used as proof of items of income in 1969, and by failing to argue to the trial judge that this constituted an impermissible variance of the indictment, appellant waived his right to raise that portion of his variance argument on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that evidence of unexplained receipts shifts to the taxpayer the burden of coming forward with evidence as to the amount of offsetting expenses, if any.”
    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.