Remmer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
1,866 federal appellate · 129 district · 825 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,742 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Olano (1993), Holland v. United States (1955)
1,866 federal appellate · 129 district · 825 state decisions — followed in 46 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
reviewedRemmer v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mattox v. United States · Galvan v. Press · Remmer v. United States · Wheaton v. United States
Cited together with Smith v. Phillips · Mattox v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Remmer v. United States · Turner v. Louisiana
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 3,742 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.”
189 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in a verdict favorable to the petitioner.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a hearing to determine whether the incident complained of was harmful to the [defendant], and if after hearing it is found to have been harmful, to grant a new trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ewing v. Horton · Phillips v. Smith
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.