United States v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.2d 1116 · 1982
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Fonner (1990), Sunstream Jet Express, Inc. v. International Air Service Co. (1984)
47 federal appellate · 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. § 401
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. Tucker · Bloom v. Illinois · United States v. Murdock · Roberts v. Louisiana
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n determining the propriety of instructions they are to be viewed as a whole, and as long as the instructions treat the issues fairly and accurately they will not be interfered with on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'largely unlimited either as to the kind or information [it] may consider, or the source from which it may come.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A good faith effort to comply with a court order tends to negate willfullness, an element of criminal contempt which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ... Yet the appellant misconstrues the defense of good faith compliancé as allowing the defendant in a contempt proceeding to “second guess” the necessity for the order he is charged with violating. In most instances, a defense of good faith compliance arises when a defendant has not refused to comply with the court order he is charged with violating, but has failed to comply because of the indefiniteness of the order or some other inability to do so ... The appellant does not contend that there was any confusion in his mind, nor could there have been, between the state court order compelling handwriting samples to the state authorities and the district court order compelling handwriting samples to the F.B.I ... The court’s order was valid, and the wisdom or necessity for the order could not constitute a defense to contempt for a refusal to comply with the order.”
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.