United States v. Mock’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.2d 341 · 1979
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Pedro M. Gonzalez-Sanchez, United States of America v. Carlos Latorre, United States of America v. Manuel Parrilla-Marquez (1987), United States v. Kimberlin (1986)
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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. § 3500 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Ashe v. Swenson · Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Sealfon 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply forbids the government from relitigating certain facts in order to establish the fact of the crime.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ladner v. Smith · Coleman v. State“It matters not that appellant’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge does not negate the possibility that he may otherwise have derived income from the sale or distribution of marijuana. The fundamental error here is that the government reintroduced the identical facts and theory of the facts which were rejected at the first trial. For purposes of any subsequent prosecution of appellant, appellant’s acquittal has conclusively established that appellant did not participate in a marijuana conspiracy with Alvarez and the others mentioned by Kilgore during the time frame of the first indictment — January to June, 1972. Consequently, the government is barred from arguing or trying to establish, for any purpose, that appellant was part of that conspiracy.”
2 later decisions 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.