United States v. Rojas’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.2d 938 · 1977
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. DiFrancesco (1980), United States v. Foster (1983)
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Green v. United States · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Illinois v. Somerville · United States v. Wilson · Serfass 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'it is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule has long been established that when ruling on a motion for acquittal the test that the court must use is whether at the time of the motion there was relevant evidence from which the jury could reasonably find [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government . bearpng] in mind that “it is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Court is aware of the fact that Mr. Steed and Mr. Beasley have been acquitted [of conspiracy to commit larceny by false pretenses] in the Circuit Court of Floyd County. And from the evidence that the Court heard here during this trial, I don’t think anyone at all could dispute the fact that Mr. Beasley and Mr. Steed were the prime movers in the development. And it just does not seem to this Court fair to convict this lady, who was way out on the perimeter, of a crime growing out of this development when Mr. Steed and Mr. Beasley have both been acquitted. It just does not seem justice. ... [I]f the Court had found sufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict, the Court would still have set aside the verdict in this case as to each count, because the Court feels like that the evidence as to the purchasers who came here and testified was highly prejudicial to the defendant. And that the prejudicial [effect] of their testimony far outweighed any probative value that their testimony might have had in the case. I think the Court was in error when it permitted these witnesses to testify. So, I’m hoping, if the government takes the case to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals will look at that facet of the case also. And if it is to come back, would advise the Court as to whether or not it would be proper to have admitted in evidence this testimony. But the Court feels that there is not sufficient evidence in the case, looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to th”
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.