United States v. Schanerman’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.2d 941 · 1945
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Monroe v. United States (1956), United States v. Knohl (1967)
46 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. Murdock · Goldman v. United States · Aetna Life Insurance v. Moore · Little v. United States · Lisansky 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No error is found, as charged by appellant, in the refusal of the district court to instruct the jurors to disregard what they had heard when records of conversations between appellant and Finneran were `played' in the hearing of the jury during the trial. This type of evidence was admissible upon the authority of Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 . Transcribed notes, made by a stenotype operator from hearing the records repeatedly `played,' were properly excluded; but the mere fact that certain portions of the mechanically recorded conversations were less audible than others did not call for exclusion of what the jurors personally heard from the `playing' of the records. There would be no more valid reason for exclusion of the mechanically recorded conversations than there would be for excluding competent conversations, overheard in part, by human witnesses."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Obviously no one would give or offer a bribe unless he expected to gain some advantage thereby, and since attempting to gain an advantage by this means is the evil which the statute is designed to prevent, it can make no difference if after the act is done the doer discovers that for some reason or another, be it a mistake on his part or a mistake on the part of some officer or agency of the United States, there was actually no occasion for him to have done it. The statute is violated when a bribe is given or an offer to bribe is made regardless of the occasion therefor, provided it is done with the requisite intent and provided the acceptor or the offeree of the bribe is a person of the sort described in the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When requested so to do, as in the instant case, the district court, in clear, unmistakable words, should have charged the jury that the finding of an indictment is no evidence of the *577 guilt of the accused.”
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.