Rosenberg v. Baum’s Empirical Analysis
153 F.2d 10 · 1946
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 1974 · most notably United States v. Cassiagnol (1970), Brodrick v. Gore (1955)
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Quock Ting v. United States · Byers v. McAuley · Payne v. Hook · Sutton v. English
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where unimpeached witnesses testify distinctly and positively to a fact and are not contradicted, their testimony should under ordinary circumstances be credited and have the effect of overcoming presumptions. But that rule is subject to qualifications. There may be such inherent unreasonableness or improbability in the statements made by the witnesses as to deprive them of credit, however positively made. Though unimpeached, the witnesses may manifest such an interest in the question as to dilute their credibility. Their attitude may completely discredit the testimony. Physical facts may dispute it. And other circumstances may render it unworthy of belief. In such case the court or jury is not réquired blindly to adopt the testimony. Instead, the court or jury may in the exercise of sound judgment decline to give it decisive credence, though it is not contradicted by direct adverse testimony.””
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.