United States v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.2d 539 · 1966
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Wolfson (1968), United States v. Simon (1969)
25 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Douglas v. Alabama · Singer v. United States · Braunfeld v. Gibbons · United States v. Monia · Public Service Commission 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.
““In light of the Constitution’s emphasis on jury trial, we find it difficult to understand how the petitioner can submit the bald proposition that to compel a defendant in a criminal case to undergo a jury trial against his will is contrary to his right to a fair trial or to due process. A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. We find no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is simply that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury — the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him. The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The [1933 Act] . . . defines an underwriter as one who takes from an issuer with a view toward distribution. " (emphasis added)); see also SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int'l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072 , 1086 (9th Cir.2010) (defining "underwriter”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.