Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 F.2d 522 - Wheaton v. United States

Wheaton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

133 F.2d 522 · 1943

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

65 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Remmer v. United States (1954), Tillman v. United States (1969)

65 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 14 states

300194319501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Mattox v. United States · McDonald v. Pless · Hyde v. United States · Hyde 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The issues arising upon the motion for a new trial have not yet been competently tried. It is apparent that the parties and the trial court did not realize the necessity of having evidence adduced. We think that, under the circumstances, this Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment and ordering the [trial] court to grant a new trial. To afford that court an opportunity to exercise a proper discretion, it is ordered that the judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury be vacated and that the case be remanded to the [trial] court with directions to set aside the order denying a new trial, to rehear the appellant’s motion, and, after a rehearing, to determine whether a new trial should be granted, or whether it should be denied and judgment re-entered upon the verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * [T}he stronger reasons and the weight of authority sustain the rule that, where a motion for a new trial is made on account of communications to the jury during their deliberations, there is a rebuttable legal presumption that they were prejudicial to the moving party, that this presumption may in some cases be overcome by evidence, and that where competent evidence is offered it is the duty of the trial court to hear and consider it, and that when it does so, and decides the motion thereon, its decision is discretionary, and is reviewable by a federal appellate court for abuse of discretion only.” Id. at 521 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * Communications, relative to a case on trial, between jurors and third persons, or witnesses, or the officer in charge of the jury, are absolutely forbidden, and, if it appears that such communications have taken place, * * * there is a rebuttable legal presumption that (such communications) were prejudicial * *”
    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.