Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 F.2d 572 - United States v. Schiller

United States v. Schiller’s Empirical Analysis

187 F.2d 572 · 1951

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 1987 · most notably United States v. McPartlin (1979), State v. Cox (1983)

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1101951196019701980decided

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 Davis v. United States · United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. · United States v. Grayson · Gideon 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is claimed that the previous question brought before the jury Schiller’s plea of guilty which was not a proper subject of attack where no judgment had been entered thereon. We think this argument confuses proof of conviction of crime to contradict a witness who has denied it with a general cross-examination of a witness on matters affecting his credibility. Although the government would have been bound by a response dealing only with credibility unless it had a court record of conviction to offer, the cross-examination was permissible because it dealt with disreputable or criminal acts tending to impugn Schiller’s veracity. * * * His testimony that he had received commissions from prospective tenants for services which were in violation of a New York penal law prohibiting excessive charges in connection with rental agreements tended to show that he had an intention to use his office in disregard of the rental control regulations in situations like the case, at bar.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We think . . . there was a sufficient showing that the entries introduced in evidence dealt with official duties. Such matters as rent adjustments and recommendations regarding the same were within his general duties, whether he performed them rightly or wrongly, at lunch or elsewhere. .”
    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.