United States v. Winstead’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 925 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Burgos (1996), United States v. Williams (2003)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 2
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Nye & Nissen v. United States · United States v. Pearlstein · United States v. Beck · United States v. Di Stefano
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly associated himself with and participated in the criminal venture.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to uphold the jury's decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To prove that Winstead knew [the farmers] intended to enter into illegal agreements with [the agent] when Win-stead pointed [the agent] out to them, the government had to produce evidence that Winstead knew both the location of [the agent’s] farm on account of which his marketing card was issued and the farms on which [the farmers] grew the tobacco they offered for sale. The jury could find that Winstead had knowledge of [the farmers’] criminal intent only if there was evidence that Winstead knew that their tobacco was grown in a different county than that from which [the agent’s] farm was located and his card was issued. The government, however, failed to produce substantial evidence of such knowledge. .... Certainly we cannot require that, without positive evidence to the contrary, a tobacco warehouseman must presume the illegality of all excess pounds transactions of which he becomes aware.”
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.