Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 F.2d 277 - Ramirez v. United States

Ramirez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

294 F.2d 277 · 1961

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
4
states following
August 1991
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 1991 · most notably Gilbert v. United States (1966), United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry Brulay (1975)

74 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

5401961197019801990decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1732

Relies on Jones v. United States · Elkins v. United States · Opper v. United States · Smith v. United States · Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County

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

  1. “Rule 33 requires that an application for a new trial (after an appeal has been taken), on the ground of newly-discovered evidence be made in the trial court and that this court will order a remand in the event the trial court evidences a willingness to grant the motion, and not otherwise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * (the police report) would be inadmissible either under the common-law exception to the hearsay rule or under the Federal Shop Book Rule codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1732 . Olender v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 795, 801 ; Gencarella v. Fyfe, 1 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 419, 420 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““must at least claim that he owned the seized property, that he had a proprietary or possessory interest in it, or that it ‘belonged’ to him.” ( 294 F.2d at 281 ).”
    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.