Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 F.2d 775 - Berry v. United States

Berry v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

271 F.2d 775 · 1959

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
August 1993
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 1993 · most notably United States v. Bozza (1966), United States v. Barrow (1966)

27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

22019591960197019801990decided

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

Relies on Marteney v. United States · Pines v. United States · Ehrlich v. United States · Greathouse v. United States · Hubsch v. United States

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[W]hat is in question here is not an ordinary check but a travelers check which, though it requires for negotiation the signature of the person- to whom it is issued, is, when issued and signed by the payee, complete against, and cannot be countermanded by, the issuer. Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 825 . Such cheeks are cash, not upon the credit of the persons negotiating them but upon the credit of the issuer and the correspondence of the endorsement of the negotiator with the signature on the face of the instrument. In the case, therefore, of such instruments, the first negotiator, if not the person to whom the check was issued, is necessarily a forger.””
    2 later decisions 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.