Ewing v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
136 F. 53 · 1905
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1937
5 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
Relies on Durland v. United States · United States v. Hess · Schroeder v. Young · Stokes v. United States · Hume 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) That, the person charged must have devised a scheme or artifice to defraud ; (2) that he must have intended to effect the scheme by opening, or intending to open, correspondence with some other person through tins post oilice establishment, or by inciting such other person to open communication with him; (3) and that in carrying out such scheme such person must have either deposited a letter or packet in the post office, or taken or received one therefrom.” Erbaugh v. United States, 173 Fed. 433 , 435, 97 C. C. A. 603 , 665; Ewing v. United Stares, 136 Fed. 53 , 54, 69 C. C. A. 61 , 62; Brown v. United States, 143 Fed. 60 , 62, 65. 71 C. C. A. 214 , 216, 219; Rumble v. United States, 143 Fed. 772 , 776, 75 C. C. A. 30 , 34.”
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.