Alford v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 687 · 1931
Citation profile
1,274 federal appellate · 47 district · 1,321 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,887 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Glasser v. United States (1942), Davis v. Alaska (1974)
1,274 federal appellate · 47 district · 1,321 state decisions — followed in 48 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Brasfield v. United States · Blitz v. United States · Wallace v. State · The Ottawa
Cited together with Davis v. Alaska · Smith v. Illinois · Glasser v. United States · Pointer v. Texas · Chapman v. State of California
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 2,887 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court. It may exercise a reasonable judgment in determining when the subject is exhausted.””
133 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Q. Where do you live, Mr. Bradley? MR. ARMSTRONG: That is objected to as immaterial and not proper cross-examination. THE COURT: I cannot see the materiality. MR. FRIEDMAN: Why, I think the jury has a perfect right to know who the witness is, where he lives and what his business is, and we have the right to elicit that on cross-examination. I may say that this is the first witness the Government had called that they have not elicited the address from. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Q. BY MR. FRIEDMAN: What is your business, Mr. Bradley? A. My profession is an accountant, public accountant. Q. What is your occupation now? A. I am not doing anything at the present time on account of this case. Q. On account of this case? A. Yes. Q. Do you live in Los Angeles? MR. ARMSTRONG: That is objected to as immaterial and invading the Court’s ruling. THE COURT: I have ruled on that question. MR. FRIEDMAN: I will temporarily pass on to something else. I would like leave to submit authorities on my right to develop that on cross-examination. I haven’t them with me. THE COURT: All right. * * * The jury were thereupon excused by the court until 9:30 o'clock on the morning of July 24, 1929, whereupon the jury retired after which the following proceedings were had relative to the materiality of the testimony, as to the residence and place thereof of Cameron Bradley. THE COURT: So ordered. In what particular do you think that evidence is material? MR. FRIEDMAN: I think it is material f”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Commonwealth v. Long
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.