United States v. Edick’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 772 · 1979
Citation profile
36 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably United States v. Busic (1981), United States v. Arrellano-Rios (1986)
36 federal appellate ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5871 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Ex parte Lange · Prince v. United States · United States v. Benz · Flick 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, the trial court’s error was to subject Edick to two punishments when ... only one was authorized. Either prison time or probation was valid under the statutory alternatives, but, to avoid an illegal cumulation of punishment, the sentences had to be imposed concurrently. Manifestly, prison time and probation cannot be served concurrently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Morris · Thomas v. Morris“The issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation. The question is whether Congress intended to exercise its power to authorize cumulative sentences for [the defendant’s] single transaction . Unless we can find from the face of the Act or from its legislative history a clear indication that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments for a single transaction, we are obliged to construe the Act against the harsher penalties that result from cumulative punishments.”
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.