Ross v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.2d 160 · 1950
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably United States v. Pelullo (1992), Cohen v. United States (1962)
61 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1010 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Berger v. United States · Viereck v. United States · Starr v. United States · Troutman v. United States · Mellor 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests (by counsel for instructions) prior to their arguments to the jury, but the court shall instruct the jury after the arguments are completed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“require the judge to inform the trial lawyers in a fair way what the charge is going to be, so that they may intelligently argue the case to the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The insistence of appellants that they should have had a verdict directed in their favor is not well grounded. They urge that there was no proof that the applications were made with the intent that the loans should be offered to the Federal Housing Administration. As in the Cohen case, [ 178 F.2d 588 ], appellants furnished the signers of the documents FHA forms upon which was prominently displayed, on the top line: ‘FHA Title I Credit Application’. As stated in the opinion in that case, the jury was privileged to infer existence of intent that loans should be sought from the Federal Housing Administration, and that the particular applications and notes were used to influence the action of that governmental agency. This being true, there was no error in the refusal of the district judge to charge, as requested by appellants, that in order to convict it must be found that appellants had ‘actual knowledge that said credit application would be offered by the Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation to or accepted by the Federal Housing Administration for insurance and that the action of said Federal Housing Administration would be influenced thereby’; *”
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.