Fournier v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
269 F.2d 26 · 1959
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Baldwin v. New York Williams (1970), United States v. Lopez (1978)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 48 U.S.C. § 731B · 48 U.S.C. § 731D
Relies on Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Reid v. Covert · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · Thompson v. State of Utah · Balzac v. People of Porto Rico
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ It appears to us that the questions whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether in case of an infamous crime a person shall only be liable to be tried after presentment or indictment of a grand jury, are eminently proper to be determined by the citizens of each staté for themselves, and do not come within the clause of the amendment under consideration. so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the laws is secured to them. * * * The right to be proceeded against only by indictment, and the right to a trial by twelve jurors, are of the same nature, and are subject to the same judgment, and the people in the several States have the same right to provide by their organic law for the change of both or either. * * * There is no reason to doubt their willingness or their ability to do so, and when providing in their Constitution and legislation for the manner in which civil or criminal actions shall be tried, it is in entire conformity with the character of the Federal government that they should have the right to decide for themselves what shall be the form and character of the procedure in such trials, whether there shall be an indictment or an information only, whether there shall be a jury of twelve or a lesser number, and whether the verdict must b”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““So far as concerns the guaranty of Art. Ill, § 2, and that of the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, it is clear that we could not hold that they are applicable to the present situation without a determination that Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 1922, 258 U.S. 298 , 42 S.Ct. 343 , 66 L.Ed. 627 , is no longer law; and certainly Reid v. Covert, 1957, 354 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 1222 , 1 L.Ed. 1148 , did not overrule Balzac v. People of Porto Rico. We cannot even find, upon an attentive reading of the opinions in Reid v. Covert, that a majority of the justices raised any question as to the continuing applicability of the Balzac case and of Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 1903, 190 U.S. 197 , 23 S.Ct. 787 , 47 L.Ed. 1016 , in the circumstances of the present case.””
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.