United States v. Mersey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 federal appellate · 12 district · 39 state decisions

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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It therefore appears abundantly clear that the remedial purpose of the Act was to avert ‘the danger of frequent conflicts, real or apparent, in the decisions of the . . . courts, and the unfortunate results thereof’; and to eliminate ‘the impossibility of the government’s obtaining final and uniform rulings by recourse to a higher court.’ 20 Harv.L. Rev. 219.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Dobies · State v. Bailey

2. ““That a writ of error may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district or circuit courts direct to the Supreme Court of the United States in all criminal cases, in the following instances, to wit : “From a decision or judgment quashing, setting aside, or sustaining a demurrer to, any indictment, or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity, or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded. “From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction for insufficiency of the indictment, where such decision is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded. “From the decision or judgment sustaining a special plea in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy. “The writ of error in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision or judgment has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted and shall have precedence over all other cases. “Pending the prosecution and determination of the writ of error in the foregoing instances, the defendant shall be admitted to bail on his own recognizance : Provided, That no writ of error shall be taken by or allowed the United States in any ease where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Ponto

3. “Clarity is to be desired in any statute, but in matters of jurisdiction it is especially important. Otherwise the courts and the parties must expend great energy, not on the merits of the dispute settlement, but on simply deciding whether a court has the power to hear a case. When judged in these terms, the Criminal Appeals Act [ 18 U.S.C. § 3731 ] is a failure. Born of compromise, and reflecting no coherent allocation of appellate responsibility, the Criminal Appeals Act proved a most unruly child that has not improved with age. The statute's roots are grounded in pleading distinctions that existed at common law which, in most instances, fail to coincide with the procedural categories of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Not only does the statute create uncertainty by its requirement that one analyze the nature of the decision of the District Court in order to determine whether it falls within the class of common-law distinctions for which an appeal is authorized, but it has also engendered confusion over the court to which an appealable decision should be brought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moreno