Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 F.1d 936 - United States v. Nathan

United States v. Nathan’s Empirical Analysis

61 F. 936 · 1894

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 1960
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1960

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

3018941900191019201930194019501960decided

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 United States v. Chase · United States v. Clark · United States v. Wilson · United States v. Andrews

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In U. S. v. Clark, 37 Fed. 106 , the same question was passed upon by Mr. Justice Brewer, then circuit judge for this circuit; it being therein held that an indictment charging the defendant with knowingly depositing- in the post office, for mailing and delivery, a certain lewd and obscene picture, was sufficient, as it would be held that the word ‘knowingly’ qualifies the full act charged to be done, and is not limited to the mere act of depositing in the post office. Following this ruling, it must be held that the indictment in the present case is sufficient in this particular, and the demurrer is therefore overruled.” U. S. v. Nathan, 61 Fed. 936 .”
    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.