Salinger v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
272 U.S. 542 · 1926
Citation profile
198 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 360 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), Crawford v. Washington (2004)
198 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Mattox v. United States · Bain Jr · Salinger v. Loisel · Crain v. United States · Robertson v. Baldwin
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 360 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The contention that the court, by withdrawing from the jury a part of the charge as without support in the evidence, amended the indictment and thereby prevented it from longer serving as an accusation by a grand jury is on no better plane than [petitioner’s other contentions]. The indictment was not amended, either actually or in legal effect. It remained just as it was returned by the grand jury, and the trial was on the charge preferred in it and not on a modified charge. After the evidence was put in, the accused, believing that part of the charge had no support in the evidence, requested that that part be withdrawn from the jury, and the court acceded to the request when the final instructions were given. The scheme to defraud as set forth in the indictment was manifold in that it comprehended several relatively distinct plans for fleecing intended victims. What the court withdrew from the jury was all of these plans but one. Thus the court ruled that the evidence while tending to sustain the charge as respects one of the plans did not give it any support as respects the others. Whether this was right or wrong — as to which we intimate no opinion — it did not work an amendment of the indictment and was not even remotely an infraction of the constitutional provision that ‘no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.’ ”);”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
2 later decisions 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.