Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 653 F.2d 1343 - United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

653 F.2d 1343 · 1981

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
3
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably United States v. Xheka (1983), United States v. Doherty (1989)

47 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

2901981199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Dunn v. United States · Albernaz v. United States · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Dennis 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he crucial question in determining whether the statute of limitations has run is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy, and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an overt act is required for a § 371 conviction, but not for a Sherman § 1 violation. The two statutes, besides requiring proof of a fact that the other does not, serve separate and distinct purposes. Sherman § 1 is aimed at avoiding collusive activity to restrain trade; the United States need not be the victim. In contrast, § 371 forbids fraud practiced against any federal government agency. Because the essence of one offense is anti-competitive activity and of the other, deceptive acts, each of which impose diverse social harms, ... the two charges are not multiplicitous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he mere continuance of the result of a crime does not continue the crime-.... But when the plot contemplates bringing to pass a continuous result that will not continue without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators to keep it up, and there is such continuous cooperation, (the conspiracy continues).”
    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.