Affronti v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
145 F.2d 3 · 1944
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably United States v. Stephen G. Scholle, United States of America v. Michael S. Needham (1977), Harold Hanger v. United States of America, Gale Mixen v. United States of America, Loretta Meyer v. United States (1968)
97 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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
Relies on Wysong v. People of the State of California · Di Carlo v. United States · Thomas Ellicott v. William Pearl · Holmes v. United States · Egan 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * As the court imposed sentences authorized by statute, the rea sonableness of the sentences is not a matter which we may review. Af-fronti v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F. 2d 3 ; Egan v. United States, 8 Cir., 268 F.2d 820 ; Jacobsen v. United States, 8 Cir., 260 F.2d 122 ; Holmes v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 528 ; Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 242 ; Holmes v. United States, 8 Cir., 134 F.2d 125 . As said by us in Affronti v. United States, supra: ‘The court imposed a sentence authorized by statute. This Court cannot concern itself with the question of the reasonableness of the sentence. “Where a District Court imposes a sentence authorized by a statute of the United States, it commits no error of law.” Holmes v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 528 , 529; Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 242 , 251; Holmes v. United States, 8 Cir., 134 F.2d 125 , 135.’ ( 145 F.2d 10 .).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the question of the admission or rejection of evidence of prior consistent statements to sustain the credibility of a witness who has been impeached by evidence of prior inconsistent statements is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that its ruling should not result in a reversal on appeal except where there has been a prejudicial abuse of discretion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(T)hat if some portions of a statement made by a witness are used on cross-examination to impeach him, other portions of the statement which are relevant to the subject matter about which he was cross-examined may be introduced in evidence to meet the force of the impeachment.””
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.