Bratton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
73 F.2d 795 · 1934
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Carbo v. United States (1963)
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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. § 250
Relies on United States v. Angeline Lombardo · Evans v. United States · United States v. La Franca · Knewel v. Egan · United States v. Pridgeon
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language is “conceals and does not as soon as may be disclose.” [sic] Some meaning must be given to the words “conceal and.” If it should be held that a failure to disclose is in itself a concealment, then a conviction may be had for a failure to disclose without more, and the words “conceal and” are thus effectively excised from the statute. Following settled rules of construction, we must assume that Congress intended something by the use of the words “conceal and.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As far as the failure to disclose to federal authority is concerned, the venue is the place where the report should have been made. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 , 39 S.Ct. 483 , 63 L.Ed. 983 ; United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 , 36 S.Ct. 508 , 60 L.Ed. 897 ; United States v. Commerford, (C.C.A. 2) 64 F.(2d) 28 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Graham“While nonessential detail in an otherwise good indictment does not invalidate it, where a grand jury indicts under one statute, a conviction may not be had under another by the device of discarding essential averments as surplusage.”
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.