Remmer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.2d 277 · 1953
Citation profile
113 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Holland v. United States (1955), Remmer v. United States (1954)
113 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 145 · 26 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Screws v. United States · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson · Mattox v. United States · Wong Tai 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * A bill of particulars should be granted where it is thought necessary (1) to protect the defendant against a second prosecution for the same offense, or (2) to enable the defendant to adequately prepare his defense and avoid surprise at the trial. * * * ” Remmer v. United States, 9 Cir., 205 F. 2d 277, 281 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The test to be applied on motion for judgment of acquittal * * * is not whether in the trial court’s opinion the evidence fails to exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt, but rather whether as a matter of law reasonable minds, as triers of the fact, must be in agreement that reasonable hypothesis other than guilt could be drawn from the evidence. * * * If reasonable minds could find that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, the question is one of fact and must be submitted to the jury.” 8”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The test to be applied on motion for judgment of acquittal in such a case, however, is not whether in the trial court’s opinion the evidence fails to exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt, but rather whether as a mutter of law reasonable minds, as triers of the fact, must be in agreement that reasonably hypotheses other than guilt could be drawn from the evidence. Stoppelli v. United States, 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 391 , certiorari denied 340 U.S. 864 , 71 S.Ct. 88 , 95 L.Ed. 631 . If reasonable minds could find that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, the question is one of fact and must be submitted to the jury. Curley v. United States, 1947, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389 , 160 F.2d 229 , certiorari denied, 331 U.S. 837 , 67 S.Ct. 1511 , 91 L.Ed. 1850 ; Stoppelli v. United States, supra. Judged by this standard, the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied in the present case.””
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.