Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.2d 821 - Arrington v. Robertson

Arrington v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

114 F.2d 821 · 1940

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Dellinger (1972), Walker v. United States (1963)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

12019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co. · Shields v. United States · Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Co. · Ah Fook Chang 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We entertain no doubt that the orderly conduct of a trial by jury, essential to the proper protection of the right to be heard, entitles the parties who attend for the purpose to be present in person or by counsel at all proceedings from the time the jury is impaneled until it is discharged after rendering the verdict.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The inquiry of the jury and the’ trial judge’s response were not reported by the court stenographer. The record does not disclose the phraseology of the jury’s question. Consequently we cannot know whether the instructions given, even though entirely sound as abstract legal statements, were appropriate to answer it, or whether additional instructions, appropriate and indeed necessary to supplement those given, might not have been suggested to the trial judge by counsel for the defendant if he had been given the opportunity to be present.” 114 F.2d at page 823 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether it was reversible error for the trial judge, in the absence of counsel for the parties and without notice to them, to send instructions in writing to the jury, pursuant to an inquiry by them, after they had retired from the court room and while they were in the jury room deliberating upon their verdict.”
    2 later decisions 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.