Larrison v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.2d 82 · 1928
Citation profile
193 federal appellate · 14 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Natanel (1991), United States v. Johnson (1946)
193 federal appellate · 14 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 People v. . Shilitano · Allen v. United States · People v. Tallmadge · Towle v. Pullen · 96 Cal. App. 381 - People v. Lambert
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 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false; (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion; (c) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.”
63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Recantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle accused to a new trial. The question whether a new trial shall be granted on this ground depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses submitted on the motion for the new trial, and its determination is left to the sound discretion of the trial court free from interference except for abuse of such discretion. Moreover, recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and is regarded with suspicion’; and it is the right and duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. Especially is this true where the recantation involves a confession of perjury.” 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1454, p. 185.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pickering v. State““ ‘But if, on the contrary, he (the judge) was convinced that the second testimony was false, that a criminal league had been formed to set at naught the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court, his duty was clearly marked. He was not at liberty to shift upon the shoulders of another jury his own responsibility. That would have been to make the conspiracy triumphant. He was charged with the responsibility to seek the truth himself.’ ” Id. at 88 (quoting with approval People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161 , 112 N.E. 733 (1916)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. State
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.