Casey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.2d 752 · 1927
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2003 · most notably Casey v. United States (1928), Shurman v. United States (1955)
32 federal appellate · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Braden v. United States · United States v. Mangano · Ng Sing v. United States · Stubbs v. United States · Johnson 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, independently of the statutory presumption, the government must affirmatively prove the place of purchase, it must also by like evidence prove the substantive fact of purchase, for how the place of purchase can be established without at the same time proving the purchase is not apparent. Fairly construed, the statute in our opinion extends * the presumption to the incidental matter of place, as well as the substantive matter of purchase.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One of the grounds upon which defendant moved for a new trial was newly discovered evidence, supported by numerous affidavits which in the main assail the character and credibility of one of the government witnesses and tend to show that she was untruthful in some of the testimony she gave. Generally the granting or refusing of a new trial is within the discretion of the court; and new trials upon this ground are not favored. Under the circumstances, defendant must have known or had good reason to anticipate that this witness would testify for the government, but there is no • showing at all of diligence. The alleged false testimony was brought out on cross-examination as to . matters purely incidental and collateral.” 20 F.2d at page 754 . (Emphasis added.)”
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.