Harary v. Blumenthal’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.2d 1113 · 1977
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Standefer v. United States (1980), Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co. (1978)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Califano v. Sanders · Helvering v. Mitchell · Sealfon v. United States · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We take judicial notice of the fact that membership in the bar of the Internal Revenue Service would be worth more than $10,000 to appellant, a certified public accountant; after the district court’s decision in this case, moreover, Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (a) to eliminate the amount-in-controversy requirement in suits against federal employees in their official capacities, Act of Oct. 21, 1976, Pub.L.No.94-574, § 2, 90 Stat. 2721 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Harary’s] factual premise that the jury’s verdict constituted a finding of entrapment is clearly incorrect in the circumstances of this case. As noted above, the jury at appellant’s trial, while acquitting him of the bribery charges, found him guilty of giving the IRS agent a gratuity. This court later stated that the jury’s verdict amounted to “a compromise.” United States v. Harary, supra, 457 F.2d at 479 . The jury, in the court’s view, could not rationally have concluded that appellant had been entrapped by the IRS into giving a bribe but not entrapped into giving a gratuity. Id. at 478 . From such a compromise verdict it cannot be said that the question of entrapment was “necessarily determined” against the Government, as is required to support a later holding of collateral estoppel....”
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.