United States v. Corn’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 889 · 1988
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Sheffer (1990), United States v. Signori (1988)
36 federal appellate · 3 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 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Albernaz v. United States · Miller v. Florida · In re Debs
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The argument that Judge Sterling may not enforce Judge Seals’s injunction also fails. [The defendant] ... [argues] that enforcement of an injunction through a contempt proceeding must occur in the issuing jurisdiction because contempt is an affront to the court issuing the order. This statement is true enough. The problem lies in [the defendant’s] attempt to equate the judge with the court. The ... injunction issued from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and was not the personal command of Judge Seals, Judge Sterling, or any other judge on that court. Each judge of a multi-district court has the same power and authority as each other judge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may be applied to a conspiracy which commenced prior to but was carried on and continued beyond the effective date of the Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands . . . when applicable, that the court may also order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense.”
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.