Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 F.2d 433 - United States v. Rogers

United States v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

289 F.2d 433 · 1961

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

107 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Bell v. United States (1983), United States v. Bell (1982)

107 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 15 states

580196119701980199020002010decided

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. § 656 · 18 U.S.C. § 661

Relies on Allen v. United States · Burton v. United States · Brasfield v. United States · Allis v. United States · State v. Smith

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

  1. “approach[ed the] ultimate permissible limits ... to which the court should go in suggesting to jurors the desirability of agreement and avoidance of the necessity of a retrial before another jury.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “hardly long enough to have permitted a painstaking re-examination of the views which the minority had held steadfastly until the charge was given.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “stripped of its complementary reminder that jurors were not to acquiesce in the views of the majority or to surrender their well-founded convictions conscientiously held . . . might readily be construed by the minority of the jurors as coercive,”
    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.