Evans v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
325 F.2d 596 · 1963
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 1992 · most notably Jones v. United States (1964), Sewell v. United States (1969)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Mallory v. United States · Frisbie v. Collins · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · Burlington County Bridge Commission v. Driscoll · Robinson 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 , 444, 7 S.Ct. 225 , 229, 30 L.Ed. 421 , that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a “forcible abduction.” No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases. They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ajssuming arguendo that appellant might have successfully raised some objection, we believe that by his failure so to do and by his entering pleas of not guilty he waived any objections thereto.”
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.