United States v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.2d 556 · 1947
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 1974
19 federal appellate · 1 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 Mitchell v. Maurer · Jin Fuey Moy v. United States · United States v. Lindenfeld · Mosier v. Federal Reserve Bank · Portland General Electric Co. 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court may grant a new trial to a defendant if required in the interest of justice. If trial was by the court without-a jury the court may vacate the judg- .. - ment if entered, take additional testimony and direct the entry of a new judg- ■ meht. A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only ^before or within two yefu;s after final judgment, but if, an ap- '' iieal is pending the court may grant the ' motion only on remand of the 'case. A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 5 days after verdict or" finding of guilty or >within such ’ further time as the court may fix during the 5-day period.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although the untimeliness of these motions is sufficient reason for their affirmance, we have, out of sympathy for the appellant’s dismay at losing his license as a physician because of his conviction, examined the trial errors of which he complains. None of them would have justified granting the motion, even if it had been timely. His main contention, that he cannot be convicted of illegal selling when all he did was to write prescriptions for patients as he might lawfully do under 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2554(c) (1), is fully met by authoritative decisions. [Cases cited.] The trial was fairly conducted and the jury correctly instructed. * * * ””
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.