Schaffer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
895 federal appellate · 87 district · 126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,314 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Zafiro v. United States (1993), United States v. Lane (1986)
895 federal appellate · 87 district · 126 state decisions — followed in 16 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
reviewedUnited States v. Schaffer (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Pinkerton v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Delli Paoli v. United States
Cited together with Kotteakos v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Glasser v. United States · Blumenthal v. United States · Opper 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 1,314 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“continuing duty at all stages of the trial to grant a severance if prejudice does appear.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f it appears that a defendant ... is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants ... the court ... may grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Petitioners also contend that, since the individual shipments with which they were connected amounted to less than $5,000 each, the requirements of the statute as to value were not present. However, it appeared at the trial that the total merchandise shipped to each petitioner during the period charged in the several counts was over $5,000, even though each individual shipment was less. The trial court permitted the aggregation of the value of these shipments to meet the statutory limit, and it is this that is claimed to be error. A sensible reading of the statute properly attributes to Congress the view that where the shipments have enough relationship so that they may properly be charged as a single offense, their value may be aggregated. The Act defines “value” in terms of that aggregate. The legislative history makes clear that the value may be computed on a “series of transactions.””
9 later decisions 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.