Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 F.2d 628 - Steele v. United States

Steele v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

222 F.2d 628 · 1955

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
2
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

93 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably United States v. Giese (1979), United States v. Leon (1976)

93 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

3501955196019701980199020002010decided

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 Holland v. United States · Tot v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Bryan 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e agree with appellant that the jury could scarcely consider this act of the court [sending the exhibit to the jury room] other than as investing these exhibits with an air of credibility as demonstrative evidence over and above, and independent of, the evidence which they purported to summarize and embody, with the undoubted effect of completely erasing from the minds of the jury, as to the so-called exhibits, any therapeutic effect the charge to the jury that the exhibits were not original evidence and were not binding upon the jury, was intended or calculated to have.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “undertook to evaluate it, endeavoring to pass upon the reliability and credibility of certain witnesses and to determine what weight should be given their testimony, so that ... the Government, through its witness Howard, was enabled to invade, indeed to take over the province of the jury.”
    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.