United States v. Yaquinta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• where part of telephone facilities used for call between points in state were located in another state, transmission was in interstate commerce for purposes of section 1084
• where part of telephone facilities used for call between points in state were located in another state, transmission was in interstate wmmerce for purposes of section 1084

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Robert Lynn Martin and Maurice Daniel Dodson v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 1968-03-05· cited 12×
• United States v. Synodinos
  D. Utah· 1963-06-11· cited 6×
• United States v. Bergland
  E.D. Wisconsin· 1962-10-31· cited 2×
• United States v. Alpirn
  S.D. New York· 1969-12-16· cited 1×
• Opinion No.
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 1995-05-02
• Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
  Texas Attorney General Reports· 1995-07-02

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey
  Supreme Court· 1948-06-14· cited 172×
• Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Speight
  Supreme Court· 1920-10-25· cited 74×
• Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Stroud
  Supreme Court· 1925-03-02· cited 63×
• Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1944-04-03· cited 43×
• United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R.
  U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1907-02-14· cited 15×
• Michael v. United States
  Seventh Circuit· 1925-06-06· cited 10×
• United States v. Erie R.
  D. New Jersey· 1909-01-12· cited 7×
• Yohn v. United States
  Second Circuit· 1922-03-06· cited 7×
• United States v. Wilson
  E.D. Tennessee· 1920-06-03· cited 5×
• United States v. Winkler
  W.D. Texas· 1924-05-19· cited 4×
• Roundtree v. Terrell
  N.D. Texas· 1938-02-17· cited 2×