United States v. Walls’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 690 · 1978
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably United States v. Whitten (1983), United States v. Kenny (1981)
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Mattox v. United States · Rogers 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the existence of a right to be present depends upon a conclusion that absence could, under some set of circumstances, be harmful. Due process does not assure “the privilege of presence when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 1934, 291 U.S. 97 , 106-07, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (Cardozo, J.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“concurrent sentence doctrine under which a federal appellate court, as a matter of discretion, may decide that it is unnecessary to consider arguments advanced by an appellant with regard to his conviction under one count of an indictment if he was validly convicted under another count and concurrent sentences were imposed,”
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.