McElroy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
164 U.S. 76 · 1896
Citation profile
260 federal appellate · 10 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 395 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably United States v. Lane (1986), Schaffer v. United States (1960)
260 federal appellate · 10 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Pointer v. United States · State v. Nelson · State v. . McNeill · State v. Hutchings
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 395 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear that the statute does not authorize the consolidation of indictments in such a way that some of the defendants may be tried at the same time with other defendants charged with a eriine different from that for which all are tried. And, even if the defendants are the same in all the indictments consolidated, we do not think the statute authorizes the joinder of distinct felonies, not provable by the same evidence, and in no sense resulting from the same series of acts. “Under the third clause, relating to several charges ‘for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses,’ it is only when they ‘may be properly joined’ that the joinder is permitted, tho statute thus leaving it for the court to determino whether in any given ease a joinder of two or more offenses in one indictment against the same person ‘is consistent with tho settled principles of criminal law,’ as stated in Pointer’s Case.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'(i)t cannot be said . . . that all the defendants (would not be) . . . embarrassed and prejudiced in their defense, or that the attention of the jury may not have been distracted to their injury in passing upon the distinct and independent transactions.”
6 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.