Aldridge v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 308 · 1931
Citation profile
519 federal appellate · 25 district · 270 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 973 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Kotteakos v. United States (1946), Swain v. State of Alabama (1965)
519 federal appellate · 25 district · 270 state decisions — followed in 35 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Connors v. United States · Pinder v. State · Crawford v. United States · 11 E.H. Smith 186 - People v. . Decker
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 973 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“subject to the essential demands of fairness.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The argument is advanced on behalf of the government that it would be detrimental to the administration of the law in the courts of the United States to allow questions to jurors as to racial or religious prejudices. We think that it would be far more injurious to permit it to be thought that persons entertaining a disqualifying prejudice were allowed to serve as jurors and that inquiries designed to elicit the fact of disqualification were barred. No surer way could be devised to bring the processes of justice into disrepute.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But the question is not as to the civil privileges of the negro, or as to the dominant sentiment of the community and the general absence of any disqualifying prejudice, but as to the bias of the particular jurors who are to try the accused. If in fact, sharing the general sentiment, they were found to be impartial, no harm would be done in permitting the question; but if any one of them was shown to entertain a prejudice which would preclude his rendering a fair verdict, a gross injustice would be perpetrated in allowing him to sit.”
8 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.