Henry Kenneth WANGROW, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America (Two Cases); Daniel Edmund CZAJKOWSKI and Mark Edward Murphy, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America (Two Cases)

1968-11-12 · Eighth Circuit · United States

read the judgment

1What it rests on

3Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19701 judgments5 years silent19751 judgments19771 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 1970–1977

first 1970 · last 1977 · busiest 1970 (1 judgments)

1977-07-28UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Cecil ROBINSON, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit×2 1975-11-18UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jackson D. LEONARD, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1970-02-06UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald Raymond RAVICH and Edward McConnell, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

What it rests on

1966-06-13John Leslie COTTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, AppelleeEighth Circuit

42 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.