The Kansas City Star Company v. United States of America, Emil A. Sees v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

107 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “25-1. Evidence of other acts of a kindred character of a party may establish the party's intent or motive in the particular act directly in question.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alexander v. National Farmers Organization, Inc. · 510 F. Supp. 381 - In Re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation

2. “* * * Under the rule, as stated and applied by the Supreme Court, it seems that, when a judge expresses his opinion as to the facts to the jury, making it clear that it is nothing but his opinion, and not binding upon them in any way, and that it is their duty and responsibility to determine all of the facts, he is within his rights, and that he is only subject to reversal when his comments upon the evidence or opinion as to the facts amounts to partisan argument or advocacy, or constitutes an appeal to passion or prejudice. It is unquestionably true that, because of the judge's influence with the jury, the right which he has to express his opinion as to the facts should be sparingly, carefully, and wisely used. At the same time, because of his participation in the actual trial of the cause, he is better able to tell when the use of that right is justified than is an appellate court from reading the cold record. After all, jurors are men with minds of their own, and, where they are given to understand that the responsibility for determining the facts is upon them, they do not generally act against what they believe to be right and just. There is a good illustration of that in this case. The judge expressed his opinion as to both defendants. The jury acquitted one and convicted the other.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert James Garner v. United States of America, Lester L. Weddle v. United States · Lewy v. Remington Arms Co.

3. ““In order to show intent, it was entirely proper to receive evidence of a course of conduct engaged in by the appellants over a period of years leading up to the indictment period which might assist the jury in attempting to determine whether or not the appellants possessed that necessary intent during the time covered by the indictment. It would be illogical not to admit evidence as to a course of conduct over many years which manifested an intent to monopolize. But we need not use a rationale to explain this state of the law. The federal courts in antitrust cases have long admitted evidence of conduct prior to the statutory period. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1911, 221 U.S. 1, 75-76 , 31 S.Ct. 502 , 55 L.Ed. 619 ; United States v. Pullman Co., supra, [D.C., 50 F.Supp. 123 ]; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1944, 147 F.2d 93 , affirmed 328 U.S. 781 , 66 S.Ct. 1125 , 90 L.Ed. 1575 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference