United States v. Rich’s Empirical Analysis
262 F.2d 415 · 1959
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably United States v. Borelli (1964), United States v. Agueci (1962)
33 federal appellate · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 1701 (War Hazards Compensation Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Alford v. United States · United States v. Falcone · Bruno v. United States · United States v. Peoni
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ If there be knowledge by the individual defendant that he is a participant in a general plan designed to place narcotics in the hands of ultimate users, the courts have held that such persons may be deemed to be regarded as accredited members of the conspiracy. ’ ’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under ordinary circumstances counsel for defendants should be given the broadest scope in their cross-examination not only to develop facts but leads from which other facts might be obtained. However this is not an absolute right. Where danger to the witness may be involved or where the cross-examination is obviously outside the scope of any reasonable relationship to the case the trial judge in his discretion is privileged to keep the cross-examination within proper bounds. * ‡ ‡ * * “Whether such an objection should be sustained or overruled depends almost entirely upon the facts of each case and the circumstances under which the question arises. * ifc ‡ ‡ íjí * “ ‘The judge was not bound to allow what on its face had no bearing on the witness’s credibility; * * *’. Furthermore, ‘The extent of cross-examination * * * is within the sound discretion of the trial court’.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Storms“The business of distributing drugs to the ultimate user seems to require participation by many persons. Rarely, if ever, do they all assemble around a single table in one large conspiracy simultaneously agreed upon and make a solemn compact orally or in writing that each will properly perform his part therein.”
1 later decision 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.