United States v. Murph’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.2d 895 · 1983
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Scaife (1984), United States v. Canan (1995)
27 federal appellate ·
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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 287
Relies on Pereira v. United States · United States Independent Telephone Ass'n v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. · United States v. Niederberger
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is settled law that an offense may be charged conjunctively in an indictment where a statute denounces the offense disjunctively.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“knew when he sold the return to the discounter that the discounter was buying it for the purpose of presenting it to the government for a refund.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendant knew when he sold the return to the discounter that the discounter was buying it for the purpose of presenting it to the government for a refund. This further [overt] act on behalf of the discounter was clearly understood and foreseen by the defendant and thus the defendant “caused” the return to be presented within the meaning of the Act. Compare Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 , 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358 , 362-363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954).”
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.