Walker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
104 F.2d 465 · 1939
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 1974 · most notably Simon v. United States (1941), Epstein v. United States (1949)
24 federal appellate ·
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. § 1287 · 26 U.S.C. § 1394 · 26 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Williamson v. United States · Di Carlo v. United States · London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woelfle · Curtis v. United States · Tincher 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“«The latitude to be allowed Jn ^ examination of a witnesS; who has been called and prQ.ves recaldtrant is wholly witWn ^ discretion of the trial . •, . judge. Nothing is more unfair than to r , , « confine a party under such circum- , „ , , , -m ^ 1 stances to neutral questions. Not only _ , « , may the questions extend to cross-ex- . .. , . *£ , , . ammation, but, if necessary to bring . ,« . ,« . .. * out the truth, it is entirely proper to ♦ ¿ * •, ■% i inquire of such a witness whether he ■. . , . . ,, , has not made contradictory statements at Qther times_ He t before the jury, and they may gather the truth frQm his wbole cQnduct and bearf . r .. , • , , , .. . even if it be m respect of contradictory ' , „ , , , ,, answers he may have made at other times ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant Walker went on the stand as a witness in his own behalf, and was cross examined with reference to certain prior convictions for crime, * * *; but it is settled that when a defendant tenders himself as a witness, his credibility, like that of any other witness, may be questioned by asking him as to previous convictions. Nutter v. United States, 4 Cir., 289 F. 484 ; Merrill v. United States, 9 Cir., 6 F.2d 120 ; cases collected 103 A.L.R. 362 .” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.