UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald Raymond RAVICH and Edward McConnell, Defendants-Appellants

1970-02-06 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · United States

read the judgment

7What it rests on

4Relied 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.

19752 judgments19761 judgments19771 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1975–1977

first 1975 · last 1977 · busiest 1975 (2 judgments)

1977-07-28UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Cecil ROBINSON, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit×5 1976-03-24UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard WIENER, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1975-11-18UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jackson D. LEONARD, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1975-04-24UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony Thomas CAMPANILE and William Monks, AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

What it rests on

1969-06-23Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States 1968-11-12Henry 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)Eighth Circuit 1968-03-18SIMMONS Et Al v. UNITED STATESSupreme Court of the United States 1967-12-18Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States 1967-06-12United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States 1966-06-13John Leslie COTTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, AppelleeEighth Circuit 1959-11-16UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose MONTALVO, William Rovira and Rose Rovira, AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

30 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.