McCandless v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 342 · 1936
Citation profile
329 federal appellate · 17 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 507 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Glasser v. United States (1942), United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson (1943)
329 federal appellate · 17 district · 66 state decisions — followed in 17 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
reviewedMcCandless v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Olson v. United States · Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co. · United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co. · Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co.
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 507 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ Rule 61 ] embodies the 'well-settled rule that an erroneous ruling which relates to the substantial rights of a party is ground[s] for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the whole record that it was not prejudicial.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule is well settled that, in condemnation cases, the most profitable use to which the land can probably be put in the reasonably near future may be shown and considered as bearing upon the market value.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.””
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.