United States v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
300 U.S. 564 · 1937
Citation profile
107 federal appellate · 22 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Dunnigan (1993), Bronston v. United States (1973)
107 federal appellate · 22 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 12 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
reviewedNorris v. United States (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McGrain v. Daugherty · Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham · Brannen v. State of Florida · Loubriel v. United States
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He would have us hold that so long as the cause or proceeding in which false testimony is given is not closed there remains a locus poenitentiae of which he was entitled to and did avail himself. The implications and results of such a doctrine prove its unsoundness. Perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration well may affect the dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. Deliberate material falsification under oath constitutes the crime of perjury and the crime is complete when a witness’ statement has once been made. It is argued that to allow retraction of perjured testimony promotes the discovery of the truth and, if made before the proceeding is concluded, can do no harm to the parties. The argument overlooks the tendency of such a view to encourage false swearing in the belief that if the falsity be not discovered before the end of the hearing it will have its intended effect, but, if discovered, the witness may purge himself of crime by resuming his role as witness and substituting the truth for his previous falsehood. It ignores the fact that the oath administered to the witness calls on him freely to disclose the truth in the first instance and not to put the court and the parties to the disadvantage, hindrance, and delay of ultimately extracting the truth by cross-examination, by extraneous investigation, or other collateral means.” 300 U.S. at 573-4 , 57 S.Ct. at 539 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the oath administered to the witness calls on him freely to disclose the truth in the first instance and not to put the court and the parties to the disadvantage, hindrance, and delay of ultimately extracting the truth by cross-examination, by extraneous investigation, or other collateral means.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever— 28 ". . . having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify . . . truly, . . . willfully and contrary to such oath states... any material matter which he does not believe to be true . . . 29 . . . . . 30 "is guilty of perjury and shall . . . be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. . . .”
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.