Bary v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
248 F.2d 201 · 1957
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 1981 · most notably United States v. Press (1964), Bary v. United States (1961)
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 10 · 18 U.S.C. § 11 · 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Schneider v. State · Dennis v. United States · Yates v. United States · American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While officials charged with the responsibility of selecting names of persons for service on grand and petit juries may exercise some discretion to the end that competent persons be selected, it is the long and unbroken tradition that methods and procedures must be employed which contemplate grand and petit juries from and truly representative of the cross-section of the community. It is not essential however that every grand jury or petit jury include representatives of all racial, economic, or social groups of the community. Neither is exact proportional representation of ethnic, economic, or social groups a prerequisite to validity. Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 , 65 S.Ct. 1276 , 89 L.Ed. 1692 ; Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 , 70 S.Ct. 629 , 94 L.Ed. 839 . But an indictment returned by a grand jury or a verdict of guilty returned by a petit jury in a criminal case cannot stand if representatives of such groups were systematically and arbitrarily excluded from the list of persons from which such grand jury or petit jury was chosen. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 , 61 S.Ct. 164 , 85 L.Ed. 84 ; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L. Ed. 680 ; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 , 74 S.Ct. 667 , 98 L.Ed. 866 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even though a requested instruction be a correct statement of applicable law, its refusal does not constitute error if the issues in the case have been correctly and adequately covered in the general instructions given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.