Sauer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
241 F.2d 640 · 1957
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1990 · most notably Lynch v. Overholser (1962), United States v. Brawner (1972)
69 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4243 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 24 U.S.C. § 211
Relies on Leland v. Oregon · Davis v. United States · Greenwood v. United States · Fisher v. United States · Durham 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Perhaps a revision of the rules of criminal responsibility would be forthcoming if the law felt it could place greater trust and confidence in psychiatry. The spectacle not only of individual psychiatrists in disagreement, but also entire divergent schools of thought is not an inspiring one. As one authority stated, "[P]sychiatry is still more of an art than a science."' Sauer v. United States (9 Cir.), 241 F.2d 640, 648-650 ." (p. 336.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There appear to be some who believe that the expert witness is asked but one question: ‘Did the accused know right from wrong?’ Nothing could be farther from the truth. The inquiry quoted is but the ultimate question. For example, in the instant matter [the Sauer Case], * * * the court appointed psychiatrist, testified at length regarding the appellant’s disorders before he was asked the critical question. The appellant’s entire mental condition was brought to the attention of the jury. Dr. Miller cogently and concisely described appellant’s abnormality in language that could be clearly understood by the jury. ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ It”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Arthur“Legal tests of criminal insanity are not and cannot be the result of scientific analysis or objective judgment. . . . They must be based on the instinctive sense of justice of ordinary men. This sense of justice assumes that there is a faculty called reason which is separate and apart from instinct, emotion, and impulse, that enables an individual to distinguish between right and wrong and endows him with moral responsibility for his acts. . . . Our collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame.”
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.