United States v. Harrell’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.2d 504 · 1943
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1975), Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corp. (1947)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 171
Relies on Hormel v. Helvering · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Brasfield v. United States · Wiborg v. United States · New York Cent Co v. Johnson
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a federal appellate court, in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, may notice an apparent error not properly raised on the record”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * The appellate court, therefore, is powerless to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict if the appellant made no motion for a directed verdict. The only exception is where the insufficiency of the evidence constitutes plain error apparent on the face of the record which if not noticed would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nder well established principles, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not preserved for review unless this is one of those exceptional cases which render inapplicable the general rule.”
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.