United States v. Sarno’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 404 · 1979
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2007
13 federal appellate · 7 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7212
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Bates v. State Bar · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Wingo v. Wedding · United States v. Sanford
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An identification of the issues in the two actions for the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify invoking the doctrine; (2) an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was ‘litigated’ in the first case; and (3) an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case. United States v. Hernandez, 572 F.2d 218, 220 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Dipp, 581 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1071 , 99 S.Ct. 841 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979); United States v. Sarno, 596 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to the element of a prior deportation, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a deportation proceeding occurred as to that defendant and as a result, a warrant of deportation was issued and executed by the removal of the defendant from the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless the subsequent perjury indictment is based upon evidence which was not available at the first trial...the government would be merely trying to recover from its initial failure to convince the trier of fact of the falsity of defendant's testimony at the first trial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Canon
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.