United States v. Hinds’s Empirical Analysis
662 F.2d 362 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Graves (1982), United States v. Lyons (1983)
17 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Rideout v. United States · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · Streeter 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" '. . . Presentation of a mere reasonable doubt of sanity does not authorize an acquittal.' Sistrunk , 455 So.2d at 289. " '. . .[w]here there is ample evidence offered by the state to support a verdict, it should not be overturned even though the *Page 995 evidence offered by the defendant is in sharp conflict therewith and presents a substantial defense.' Fuller v. State , 269 Ala. 312 , 333 , 113 So.2d 153 , 172 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 936 , 80 S.Ct. 380 , 4 L.Ed.2d 358 (1960). " 'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases, we are to view the evidence and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from it in a light most favorable to the government. . . . Whether evidence is direct or circumstantial, we must accept all credibility choices that tend to support the jury's verdict. . . . The standard of review is whether a reasonably minded jury must necessarily have entertained a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. If the jury could not reasonably have concluded that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, then we must reverse the convictions.' " United States v. Hinds , 662 F.2d 362 , 366 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1720 , 72 L.Ed.2d 140 (1982).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(B)reaking the evidence down into discrete `facts', each with its own innocent explanation, distorts the jury's actual view of the case. For even if the jury had found that each piece of evidence, standing alone, was consistent with innocence, the jury nevertheless could reasonably have concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. United States v. Rodriguez , 654 F.2d [315] at 317 [ (5th Cir. 1981) ]. Finally, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and under this standard . . . (the defendant's) `innocent explanation' argument obviously must fail." United States v. Hinds , 662 F.2d 362 , 367 (5th Cir. 1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The word 'value' means face, par or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.”
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.