Foster v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Matter of KA (1984), In re S.K. (1989)
1 district · 38 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 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Gore v. United States · Wong Tai v. United States · Callanan v. United States · M. A. P. v. Ryan
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In the act of sentencing, the judge approaches the attribute of the Almighty he sits in judgment of his fellow man...."[ [14] ] To sit in judgment of a man while looking him in the eye and knowing him in some way first hand is one thing, but to do so only by way of the dispassionate and remote confines of an appellate record, no matter how elaborately composed, is quite another. The judgment that this court should not enter the area of reviewing the excessiveness of sentences is one not easily arrived at. Indeed, reasonable men[ [15] ] may and do differ on the subject. However, absent legislative direction that we must undertake such a task, and firm guidance as to applicable standards for such review, we hold we may not do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of LJ““In the act of sentencing, the judge approaches the attribute of the Almighty— he sits in judgment of his fellow man....” [ 14 ] To sit in judgment of a man while looking him in the eye and knowing him in some way first hand is one thing, but to do so only by way of the dispassionate and remote confines of an appellate record, no matter how elaborately composed, is quite another. The judgment that this court should not enter the area of reviewing the exces-siveness of sentences is one not easily arrived at. Indeed, reasonable men[ 15 ] may and do differ on the subject. However, absent legislative direction that we must undertake such a task, and firm guidance as to applicable standards for such review, we hold we may not do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re L.J.“In the act of sentencing, the judge approaches the attribute of the Almighty he sits in judgment of his fellow man....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of LJ
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.