United States v. Read’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 1225 · 1981
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 182 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Yarbrough (1988), United States v. Parker (1990)
146 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 15 U.S.C. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Kotteakos v. United States · Berger v. United States · United States v. Marion
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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the burden of going forward with evidence of withdrawal ... remains on the defendant. However, once he advances sufficient evidence, the burden of persuasion is on the prosecution to disprove the defense of withdrawal beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“conspirator is liable for overt acts of every other conspirator done in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether the acts occurred before or after he joined the conspiracy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To sustain the charge in Count Six as to defendant Reynaldo Diaz, of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, the government must prove the following propositions: First, the defendant David Peirallo is guilty of the offense charged in Count Six of the indictment; Second, the defendant David Peirallo committed the offense charged in Count Six in furtherance of or as a natural and foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy charged in Count one [sic] of the indictment; and Third, defendant Reynaldo Diaz was a member of the conspiracy at the time defendant David Peirallo committed the offense charged in Count Six. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant Reynaldo Diaz guilty of Count Six of the indictment. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find defendant Reynaldo Diaz not guilty of Count Six.”
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.