United States v. Westerhausen’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.2d 844 · 1960
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 1980 · most notably Mims v. United States (1967), Blake v. United States (1969)
67 federal appellate · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 4244 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Leland v. Oregon · Davis v. United States · Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Harrington · Durham v. United States · Lyles 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant has interposed insanity as a defense. The law presumes that a defendant is sane. This presumption is rebuttable. Where a defendant introduces some evidence that he had a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the crime charged, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a mental disease, or that despite the mental disease he had the capacity either to know the criminality of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In criminal cases involving defendant's insanity, in order to remove a case from a jury's consideration, a court must conclude that on the basis of the evidence in the case before it, reasonable men must necessarily possess a reasonable doubt as to defendant's sanity and that reasonable men must conclude that the government has failed to sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the capacity to commit the crime. * * * 24”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The quantum and nature of proof the Government must offer to take the case to a jury varies in different situations and to some degree depends upon the quantum and nature of proof the defendant offers.””
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.