United States v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
247 F.2d 698 · 1957
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Oates (1977), 141 Ill. 2d 40 - People v. Smith (1990)
69 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 11 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 28 U.S.C. § 1732 · 28 U.S.C. § 1733
Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley · Burlington County Bridge Commission v. Driscoll · United States v. Rosenberg · Julius Rosenberg and Ethel 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a neat condensation of the government's whole case against the defendant.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[E]ven if memoranda such as the ones in question are regularly prepared by law enforcement officers, they lack the necessary earmarks of reliability and trustworthiness. Their source and the nature and manner of their compilation unavoidably dictate that they are inadmissible under section 1732. They are also subject to the objection that such utility as they possess relates primarily to prosecution of suspected law breakers, and only incidentally to the systematic conduct of the police business." ( 247 F.2d at 700 .)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wood v. State · State v. Bertul““[E]ven though ‘the persons who made the memoranda were present at the trial and were tendered for cross-examination (and) that the memoranda were merely cumulative of other evidence properly in the record and that there was overwhelming evidence properly received of the defendant’s guilt’, we cannot say that the error did not influence the jury, to the defendant’s detriment, or even that it had but very slight effect.””
3 later decisions 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.