Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 F.2d 232 - United States v. Bransen

United States v. Bransen’s Empirical Analysis

142 F.2d 232 · 1944

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
5
states following
March 2007
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably Washington v. United States (1954), Casey v. Albertson's Inc. (2004)

29 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions

2001944195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Danforth v. United States · Campbell v. American Foreign S. S. Corp. · United States v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.

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

  1. ““ ‘Newly discovered evidence,’ within Federal Rule 59, refers to evidence of facts existing at time of trial, of which aggrieved party was excusably ignorant. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.””
    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.