United States v. 5 Cases, More or Less’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 519 · 1950
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2005 · most notably Namet v. United States (1963), United States v. Agueci (1962)
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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 Holder v. United States · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong · United States v. Regan · 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States of America
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The privilege is merely an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry' and 'it is universally conceded that the question may be put to the witness on the stand ' " (emphases in original), but nevertheless held that "we are not prepared to say that it would not be ground for reversal if the party who called a witness connected with a challenged transaction knew, or had reasonable cause to know, before putting the witness on the stand that he would claim his privilege.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The next objection is denial of the claimant’s motion for discovery. Before trial the claimant moved for an order directing the United States to furnish it with true and exact copies of each and every chemical test and analysis made by or for the United States on the samples of oil taken from the seized goods. * * “Rule 34 permits discovery only when ‘good cause therefor’ is shown. Judge Hincks rightly ruled that no good cause for the discovery appeared, since the claimant had already made its own tests and' analy-ses upon samples which had been supplied at its request.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Korman v. Nobile““The victim of alleged prejudice cannot be allowed to nurse it along to the point of reversibility and then take advantage of a situation which by his silence he has helped to create.””
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.