Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 F.2d 472 - Cain v. United States

Cain v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

19 F.2d 472 · 1927

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
October 1979
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1979 · most notably Watts v. United States (1976), State v. Treadway (1977)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

90192719301940195019601970decided

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 Gavieres v. United States · Ex Parte Nielsen · Burton v. United States · Albrecht v. United States · Morgan v. Devine

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. “(5) The contention that defendant was entitled to have a trial jury selected from the entire panel embraced in the venire for the term is, of course, too frivolous for extensive notice. All he was entitled to was a jury of 12 unbiased and unprejudiced jurors out of any part of the regular panel, if there were enough of such panel not engaged in other cases on trial to provide so many; if not, then a jury composed of talesmen, together with such remainder of the regular panel as a nucleus, as were not otherwise engaged and serving. The former he got, and he can ask no more.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The question whether the first count does not embrace the identical facts and acts charged in the second count is a serious and difficult one . . . The trouble is not with the law but with the facts. This possibility of a violation of either statute by wholly different acts is readily demonstrable . . . We think, however, it is a question of what was actually done rather than a question of what might have been done.”
    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.