Windom v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
260 F.2d 384 · 1958
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 1980
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 2314
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. · Ballard v. United States · Frazier v. United States · Eubanks v. State of Louisiana
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he burden of making a showing that some class was improperly excluded from the jury lies with the defense. Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497 , 69 S.Ct. 201 , 93 L.Ed. 187 . . . . Surely, some showing of a disposition to discriminate is prerequisite to a searching investigation. The court should not be required to permit a full scale investigation of its jury panel until it is suspect.” 260 F.2d at 385 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Holt
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.