United States v. Beil’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 1313 · 1978
Citation profile
36 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 1996 · most notably United States v. Harrelson (1985), United States v. Conroy (1979)
36 federal appellate ·
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 Glasser v. United States · Berger v. United States · United States v. Feola · Davis v. Alaska · Brady 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I)n order to effectuate the congressional purpose of according maximum protection to federal officers by making prosecution for assaults upon them cognizable in the federal courts, (18 U.S.C.) § 111 cannot be construed as embodying an unexpressed requirement that an assailant be aware that his victim is a federal officer. All the statute requires is an intent to assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle or aircraft, knowing the same to' have been stolen, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[C]onspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself.”
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.