United States v. Monholland’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1311 · 1979
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Jones v. United States (2000), United States v. Manley (1980)
70 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Ryan v. United States · Infelice v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. · Geders v. United States · United States v. Mandujano
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is essential that the defendant, with the intent of committing the particular crime, do some overt act adapted to, approximating, and which in the ordinary and likely course of things will result in, the commission of the particular crime.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A substantial step must be strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant's criminal intent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The vehicle in question was not even used on official business. It was used to transfer the judge to and from work. The important problem here is that movement to and from work is an activity which ordinarily has an existence independent from the work. It does not blend into and become a part of the career. If a connection is to be established between the vehicle and the work, it must be shown that there exists a nexus between the two activities. Here the activities are independent. The evidence here is that the function of the truck is to get the judge back and forth, and if the truck fails he would find some other means to accomplish the trip. We say, then, that the truck is wholly immaterial as far as any commerce is concerned even if we assume that there is a commerce quality about what the judge does after he gets to court.... Since [the vehicle] is divorced from the activity carried on in court, there is no legal relationship whereby one can say that the truck affects commerce .... Our view has to be that, in law, the activity of the judge at the courthouse is remote from the use of the truck. The truck does not enter into the administration of justice in the slightest degree.”
4 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.