Crow v. Dumke’s Empirical Analysis
142 F.2d 635 · 1944
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1973
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Cashman · Prisament 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Furthermore, before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the motion therefor must show that the evidence has been discovered since the trial, it must show facts from which the court may infer reasonable diligence on the part of the movant — in other words, it must show some reason why the evidence was not produced at the first trial — and it must show that the evidence is not merely cumulative, that it is material and is of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a different result. Prisament v. United States, 5 Cir., 96 F.2d 865 ; Marshall’s U. S. Auto Supply v. Cashman, 10 Cir., Ill F.2d 140.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Weltzien
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.