Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 F.1d 21 - United States v. Howell

United States v. Howell’s Empirical Analysis

56 F. 21 · 1892

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 1967
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1967

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

4018921900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

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

  1. ““Where the evidence shows a continuous agreement or intention to secure such underrate, proof of a single overt act in furtherance of it is sufficient to make out the offense; and proof of separate overt acts will not show more than one offense where the agreement or combination is one and continuous.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.