Hardy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.2d 704 · 1952
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably Dirring v. United States (1964), Tucker v. United States (1967)
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 1731
Relies on Michelson v. United States · Hilliard v. United States · Eagles v. United States · Devoe 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t has repeatedly been held that the [exclusionary] rule will not be given application to exclude evidence which may incidentally .show arrest, incarceration or conviction for some other offense, but which has relevancy and competency otherwise, and which the trial court responsibly deems a necessary or not inappropriate means in the particular situation of establishing some material fact or aspect of the prosecution’s case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are satisfied that appellant has had all the elements and incidents of a fair trial. He has been provided with the services of capable, experienced and diligent counsel, both in the trial court and here, who have conscientiously and adequately, at every stage, presented his position and protected his rights. The evidence of his guilt, as we have said, is strong. No judicial error has been shown; no misleading of the jury, from improper court room atmosphere or otherwise, can be said to have occurred; and no miscarriage of justice either processively or fundamentally exists in his conviction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * it is abundantly settled (indeed the contrary would be preposterous) that relevant evidence does not become incompetent because it incidentally proves that the accused has committed an independent crime.””
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.