Morrow v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.2d 654 · 1939
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2001
13 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
Relies on Holder v. United States · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong · Allen v. United States · Tinkoff v. United States · Wolf 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While counsel should refrain from embarrassing the court or possibly prejudicing the jury, opposing counsel also has a duty. If he believes that a prejudice exists, due to an improper question or remark which will prevent a fair trial, the party who is prejudiced should ask for a new trial then and there. It is neither fair nor just that he first take a chance on a favorable verdict and, if disappointed, then complain.” Morrow v. United States, 101 F.2d 654 , 658 (7th Cir. 1939), certiorari denied, 307 U.S. 628 , 59 S.Ct. 836 , 83 L.Ed. 1511 .”
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.