United States v. Markus’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 442 · 1983
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Marcus Hook Development Park Inc Ta (1991), United States v. Kemp (2007)
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Dunn v. United States · Hagner v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker · Schaffer v. United States · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co.
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.
“It is settled law that 'nothing can be added to an indictment without the concurrence of the grand jury by which the bill was found.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A sensible reading of the statute properly attributes to Congress the view that where the shipments have enough relationship so that they may properly be charged as a single offense, their value may be aggregated. The Act defines “value” in terms of that aggregate. The legislative history makes clear that the value may be computed on “a series of transactions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold, therefore, that because 18 U.S.C. § 2314 requires a $5,000 minimum jurisdictional amount and because each count of a multiple count indictment must satisfy this jurisdictional minimum, the district court correctly dismissed the indictment in the present case and properly ordered the defendant acquitted on all counts.”
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.