Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 F.2d 512 - Webb v. United States

Webb v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

191 F.2d 512 · 1951

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
6
states following
August 1987
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 1987 · most notably State v. Campbell (1972), Beck v. United States (1962)

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

2001951196019701980decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)

Relies on Weiss v. United States · United States v. Hardaway Young · Troutman v. United States · Maytag Co. v. Apex Electrical Manufacturing Co. · Nick 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We find no merit in the contention of the defendant that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of the prosecution. Opening statements are merely to advise the jury as to what it may expect by way of evidence and questions which will be presented to it. It is not evidence and is merely for the assistance of the jury. In rare instances the opening statement of a party may show affirmatively that it has no right to recover, or in a criminal case that the prosecution cannot make a case. Rose v. United States, 9 Cir., 149 F. 2d 755, 758 . The opening statement here explained the indictment and the evidence which the prosecution expected to introduce to sustain it. It did not show affirmatively that the prosecution should not prevail.” (emphasis supplied.)”
    2 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.