Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.2d 34 - Shettel v. United States

Shettel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

113 F.2d 34 · 1940

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
6
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably Gaither v. United States (1969), Bracey v. United States (1944)

48 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

300194019501960197019801990decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 541

Relies on Carroll v. United States · Marron v. United States · Reynolds v. States · Williamson v. United States · Phillips v. Commissioner

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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Moreover, while it is true, as appellant argues, that the Constitution guarantees to an accused the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, it does not follow that the rejection of [allegedly] unqualified persons for insufficient cause would deprive appellant of that right; or that any useful or legitimate purpose would be served by remanding the case for a new trial before another impartial jury. It is significant in this respect, moreover, that no claim is made that the jury, as finally constituted, was biased or prejudiced; or that appellant was deprived of a trial by an impartial jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.