Isbell v. States’s Empirical Analysis
26 F.2d 24 · 1928
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1954
5 federal appellate · 1 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.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing appears in the record which would indicate that the trial Court abused this discretion in denying the motion, or that the facts in this case present a situation from which it might be apparent that either defendant could not or did not secure a fair and impartial trial by being tried jointly with his co-defendant. " So in Raarup v. U.S. (C.C.A.), 23 F.2d 547 , 548, the Court held that the motion was properly refused, in that *Page 74 "the record does not show that Raarup would be or was prejudiced by a denial of his motion for a severance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Francis
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.