Griffin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.2d 521 · 1979
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States v. Tinoco (2002), Mallette Bros. Construction Co. v. United States (1983)
26 federal appellate · 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. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 26 U.S.C. § 4401 · 26 U.S.C. § 4411 · 26 U.S.C. § 4412
Relies on United States v. Janis · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · United States v. Calamaro · Pizzarello v. United States · Gerardo v. Commissioner
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) (Semble ). The district judge did not submit to the jury whether Griffin was liable under this clause for the bets he actually wrote, and the government did not except to this failure 14 The government also contends that he was liable for the tax on the few wagers that he personally wrote, because of his failure to register. This aspect of the case is discussed separately below 15 Example 2 under this subsection of the Treasury regulations describes the functions of a pick up man who is not subject to a wagering tax”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in obtaining the initial authorization for the wiretaps has been shown or suggested by taxpayers 6 Taxpayers also argue that there is a factual error in Fleming that we ought not repeat. They suggest that the Fleming court mistakenly thought that any transfer of information from the FBI to IRS came only after the wiretap material was placed on the public record in the criminal proceedings. The court made no such error. The opinion clearly evidences an awareness that the FBI forwarded information”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“bets that Griffin personally wrote, See notes 10 & 11 Supra, the jury could reasonably have found that he did not stand to win or lose depending on the number selected for the day. Thus his duties as a pick up man could not make him liable under this section. Cf. Evans v. U. S., 349 F.2d 653, 658 (CA5, 1965) (three classes of persons covered by federal gambling statutes are”
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.