Ferrari v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
244 F.2d 132 · 1957
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2001 · most notably United States v. Dellinger (1972), State v. Kish (1982)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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
Relies on Quercia v. United States · Holt v. United States · Walder v. United States · United States v. Johnson · Rosenberg 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellee was under no obligation to look for the appellant’s witnesses, in the absence of a showing that such witnesses were made unavailable through the suggestion, procurement, or negligence of the appel-lee.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Wé may say that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict only if we can conclude as a matter of law that reasonable minds, as triers of the fact, must be in agreement that reasonable hypotheses other than guilt could be drawn from the evidence. Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389 , 160 F.2d 229, 230 . In the cited case, Judge Prettyman pertinently observes: ‘If the judge were to direct acquittal whenever in his opinion the evidence failed to exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt, he would preempt the functions of the jury. Under such rule, the judge would have to be convinced of guilt beyond peradventure of doubt before the jury would be permitted to consider the ease.’ 160 F.2d at page 233 . See also United States v. Perillo, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 645 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The testimony of the fingerprint expert was sufficient to go to the jury if its nature was such that reasonable minds could differ as to whether inferences other than guilt could be drawn from it. It is not for us to say that the evidence was insufficient because we, or any of us, believe that inferences inconsistent with guilt may be drawn from it. To say that would make us triers of the fact. We may say that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict only if we can conclude as a matter of law that reasonable minds, as triers of the fact, must be in agreement that reasonable hypotheses other than guilt could be drawn from the evidence.””
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.