United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 800 · 1978
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably United States v. Ayarza-Garcia (1987), United States v. Hall (1994)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 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 16 U.S.C. § 3 · 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Serfass v. United States · Ohio v. Gallagher · United States v. Mann · United States v. Hudson
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“capable of determination without the trial of the general issue....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellees in the present case made no contention that the information did not charge an offense against the United States. Although the district judge did not receive evidence, he dismissed the information on the basis that appellees’ conduct, as explained by counsel, did not constitute the violation charged. The dismissal was in effect a determination of guilt made at a point in the proceedings when the district judge was without jurisdiction to render it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““King [appellee] is a cattle rancher. He has, for some years, obtained permits to trail his cattle between summer and winter pastures across what is known as Old Creek Trail, which traverses the Capitol Reef National Park. In April, 1976, prior to trailing his cattle, he inspected the trail and discovered it was not passable. King contracted with Jackson to bulldoze the obstructed portion of the trail. King forwarded Jackson’s bill to the Bureau of Land Management with a request for payment. The Bureau indicated it could not pay the bill, and in turn, forwarded it 1o the National Park Service, whereupon the petty offense information was filed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Taylor
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.