United States v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1172 · 1979
Citation profile
40 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably United States v. Hathaway (1986), United States v. Brazel (1997)
40 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hamling v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“incident to an essential part of the [bidrigging] scheme.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Now ladies and gentlemen, you have heard evidence.. .that the defendant.. .refused to obey an order of the Court that he furnish handwriting specimens. And you have heard... that he was asked to furnish (handwriting specimens) for the purpose of... comparison (with) the handwriting obtained on certain documents and records. The law, ladies and gentlemen, provides that an order to furnish handwriting samples or exemplars is a lawful order. That order, therefore, in no way violated any of [defendant's] legal or constitutional rights. I charge you that the conduct of the defendant in refusing to furnish those handwriting specimens, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so refuse, is not alone sufficient to establish his guilt because innocent persons sometimes decline to give evidence to authorities even when ordered to do so. However, such conduct including all of the events related thereto, is a circumstance from which the jury may, if it chooses, reasonably draw the inference and find, in light of the surrounding circumstances, that the defendant.. .believed that the comparison of his handwriting with the signatures on the documents ob-tamed by the Government would be unfavorable to (him) and favorable to the prosecution. The law does not require that you draw such an inference. You are the sole judges of the facts. Bear in mind that the law never imposes upon any defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witness or producing any evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“were not sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to sustain a conviction under Sec. 1341). We decline to treat the question as one of law, and hold that the validity of convictions under Sec. 1341 will depend on the facts of each case. 11 The defendant argues that unless there is a demonstrable connection between the mailing in question and the execution of the fraudulent scheme, Sec. 1341 is inapplicable. We agree. In this case the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, established a”
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.