Marks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.2d 377 · 1958
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Kendall (1985), 162 W. Va. 602 - State v. Frazier (1979)
63 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments)
Relies on Frye v. United States · Territo v. United States · State v. Kolander · People v. Wochnick
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is only when such conduct can present a question whether there is reason to believe that it influenced the jury's verdict that the failure to take appropriate steps to remove it will warrant a reversal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must he sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. “We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Trimble
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.