United States v. Winn’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 86 · 1978
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably United States v. Echeverry (1985), United States v. Escobar de Bright (1984)
64 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1542 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Williams v. Florida · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Corallo 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). 21 Knight interprets Rule 12.2(a) in a slavishly literal fashion. If read literally, Rule 12.2(a) states that a defendant forfeits the right to assert an insanity defense only when a pretrial motion date passes without the filing of a notice of intent. Following this analysis to its logical end, if no pretrial motion date is set, no notice of intent, whenever filed, is untimely. Adopting this construction would subvert, rather then implement, the purpose of Rule 12.2(a). 22 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 12.2 make it clear that the objective of the notice requirement is”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States ... contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant contends that he was taking drugs which deprived him of the mental capability of forming and having the specific intent to commit the crimes with which he is charged. Being under the influence of a drug, even one taken for medical purposes, provides a legal excuse for the commission of a crime only if the effect of the drug makes it impossible for the accused person to have the specific intent to commit the crime with which he is charged. Evidence that defendant acted while under the influence of a drug or drugs may be considered by you together with all the other evidence in determining whether or not he did in fact have the specific intent to commit each crime with which he is charged. If, after considering all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether, because of the influence of a drug or drugs, defendant Echeverry had the specific intent to commit a particular crime with which he is charged, then you must acquit him of that crime.”
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.