Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 F.2d 105 - Finnegan v. United States

Finnegan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

204 F.2d 105 · 1953

Citation profile

160
cited by 160 later decisions
9
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

126 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Borelli (1964), Monroe v. United States (1956)

126 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions

69019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Holt v. United States · Dunlop v. United States · United States v. Manton · Di Carlo v. United States · Egan 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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The mere showing that great publicity had been given the matter of the charges against defendant was certainly not sufficient to warrant this court in reversing the case on the ground of the denial of defendant’s motion for continuance. * * * Finally, it may be said that newspaper publicity tending to excite public prejudice against a defendant is not usually considered as a sufficient reason for granting an application for continuance. * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is strenuously urged that the guilt of the defendant rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and accordingly the rule requiring that the circumstances be not only consistent with the guilt of defendant but be inconsistent with any other reasonable theory than that of guilt and' that if the circumstances are as consistent with his innocence as with his guilt, the motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. The rule, however, is applicable only where the evidence is wholly circumstantial and if there is any direct evidence in the case for the government which would be sufficient if' believed by the jury to show defendant’s guilt, then the rule as to circumstantial evidence may not be invoked.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““To be available on appeal, an exception to an instruction must have been taken in the lower court so that the court might, if the objection seemed well taken, cure any error. Hall v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 85 F.2d 447 ; Palmer v. Miller, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 926 . We therefore decline to consider the various objections now urged that were not presented to the trial court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.