United States v. Bissonette’s Empirical Analysis
586 F.2d 73 · 1978
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably United States v. Udey (1984), United States v. Lepanto (1987)
17 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1071 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Holland v. United States · Patterson v. United States · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“jury can infer from the evidence presented that the accused had the requisite knowledge”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“knowledge that a federal offense has been committed”
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.