Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 F.2d 281 - Malone v. United States

Malone v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

94 F.2d 281 · 1938

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
August 1980
most recently cited

39 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 1980 · most notably Halle v. Commissioner (1949), United States v. Stromberg (1959)

39 federal appellate ·

210193819401950196019701980decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 145

Relies on Thomas Wood Junior v. United States · Allis v. United States · Gleckman v. United States · Tinkoff v. United States · Paschen v. United States

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

  1. “And said court may in term order a grand jury to be summoned at such time, and to serve such time as it may direct, whenever, in its judgment, it may be proper to do so. And the district judge or the senior district judge, as the case may be, may, upon request of the district attorney or of the grand jury or on his own motion, by order authorize any grand jury to continue to sit during the term succeeding the term at which such request is made, solely to finish investigations begun but not finished by such grand jury: Provided, however, That no grand jury shall be permitted to sit in all during more than three terms.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The fact that the final assessments against corporations from Whom this money was received, were decreased, in connection with the circumstances under which the defendant received the money, was sufficient to justify a jury in believing the same was received by the defendant as bribes, and that at least a sizable portion of the currency deposits came from such a source and constituted a part of defendant’s income. The evidence that defendant’s net worth during the years in question was increased in an amount somewhat similar to the amount of the currency deposits is not without significance.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a rather convincing circumstance in support of the charge.”
    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.