Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 F.2d 951 - Mitchell v. United States

Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

213 F.2d 951 · 1954

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Cohen v. United States (1962), United States v. Terebecki (1982)

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

220195419601970198019902000decided

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. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 145

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Alford v. United States · Michelson v. United States · Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. · St. Clair 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The object of examination is to get the facts. Whether direct or cross-questions best serve that end depends upon circumstances. The trial judge is in a better position than is. this Court to determine the precise point at which the asking of leading questions should be brought to a halt. He sees the witness and hears the testimony, and thus has a better opportunity to assess the true situation existing at any given posture of the case, than can we from the cold record. The discretion of an experienced trial judge in this, as in other respects, should not be lightly disregarded. [Id. 956.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * When the error alleged is to the charge of the court, the specification shall set out the part referred to totidem verbis, whether it be in instructions given or in instructions refused, together with the grounds of the objections urged at the trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It is well settled that the extent of cross-examination and the restriction of the use of leading questions rest in the sound discretion of 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.