Stiles v. Lawrie’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 188 · 1954
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably United States v. Pennell (1984), Domeracki v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. (1971)
30 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Relies on Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corp. · Sreet Railroad & Tel. Companies v. Simmons · 73 F. Supp. 909 - Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Imbraguglia
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requires that the verdict be set aside, unless entirely devoid of any proven influence or the probability of such influence upon the jury's deliberations or verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[receiving incompetent documents by a jury requires that the verdict be set aside, unless entirely devoid of any proven influence or the probability of such influence upon the jury’s deliberations or verdict.... It is not for the court to say whether there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to justify the finding of the jury, and that the evidence improperly received by them could have had no influence on the verdict. This is purely a matter of fact and not within the province of the court to determine, for the law has no criterion by which to know or ascertain the effect which the improper evidence may produce upon the verdict. When improper evidence, that may have prejudiced the case, has been received by the jury, the law will so presume.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“and two other occasions when witnesses for plaintiff lent support to that characterization 10 In Stiles, the court explained why a presumption of prejudice is necessary. It stated: The foreman of the jury was asked by the trial court whether [the extraneous evidence] played any important part in the final verdict of the jury, and his reply was:”
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.