United States v. James E. Fife, United States of America v. Alvin Klein’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.2d 369 · 1976
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Blakeney (1991), United States v. Layne (1999)
48 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Blockburger v. United States · Giglio v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Pinkerton v. United States · Pereira 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. .. The test to be applied to determine whether the offenses are separate or essentially congruent is the ‘same evidence’ test. As the Supreme Court has held, whenever it appears that the proof of one offense proves every essential element of another growing out of the same act, the Fifth Amendment limits the punishment to the single act. “Our examination of the record persuades us that essentially the same evidence in this case was relied upon to prove both the conspiracy count and the substantive offenses. The proof was offered indiscriminately on all three counts and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to weed out any item of evidence that was not pertinent to all counts. The overt aets in the fourth count were all relevant in proving the substantive offenses as well as the conspiracy. “Our ruling does not mean that proof of bribery offenses condemned by 18 U.S.C. Secs. 201 (f) and 201(g) would necessarily in all cases require proof of an agreement or joint action — the essence of a conspiracy. For these statutory offenses may or may not involve an agreement or a concert of action between two or more persons. Both subsections condemn certain acts of a single individual as well as acts of two or more persons. “In the present case, however, the substantive offenses charged in counts one and three in effect charged the same agreement or concert of action on the part of Austin and others, as charged in the conspiracy count. Since proof of the substantive offenses, as a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purpose of Alford and Smith is achieved if sufficient evidence is admitted to identify the witness and locate him in his usual environment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not lay down a per se rule that a witness must always be required to give his residence address.”
2 later decisions 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.