Beard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 state decisions

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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The information the police had was sufficient to put them on notice the place was being used for gaming. This was enough to make the subsequent entrance and arrest lawful. The arrests being lawful, it was equally lawful to search the place and to use the incriminating things found as evidence in the prosecution; for ‘when a man is legally arrested for an offense, whatever, is found upon his person or in his control which it is unlawful for him to have and which may be used to prove the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the prosecution.’ Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 287 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 ; and see, also, Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 198 , 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ; where the court said, in a seizure under the National Prohibition Act, the authority of the officers to search and seize the thing’s relating to or constituting the offense extends to all parts of the premises used for the unlawful purpose.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Collins v. United States

2. ““R.S. § 1025 8 was enacted for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice through the application of technical rules in relation to matters of form in indictments, and it is now universally held, that the sufficiency of a criminal pleading is to be determined by practical, rather than technical, considerations. Or, as the Supreme Court said, the rigor of the old common-law rules has yielded in modern practice to the general principle that formal defects not prejudicial will be disregarded. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 , 52 S.Ct. 417 , 76 L.Ed. 861 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. American Medical Ass'n

3. ““The test is whether the same evidence is necessary to establish both charges, for in those circumstances counts relating to the same transactions or series of transactions may be joined, even though the offenses are not of the same grade.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 262 F. Supp. 657 - United States v. Baker