Ross v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
374 F.2d 97 · 1967
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably United States v. Baldwin (1979), United States v. Lewis (1976)
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1702 · 18 U.S.C. § 1703 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 471 (Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 495
Relies on Aldridge v. United States · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · Davis v. United States · Stoner v. California · Connors 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he plain language of the statute discloses a clear intent on the part of Congress to extend federal protection over mail matter from the time it enters the mails until it reaches the addressee or his authorized agent.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the present case only one investigating officer appeared as a witness. There were 13 other witnesses for the prosecution. The officer sat at the counsel table with the government attorneys. He was the agent who took the defendant’s statement which was introduced without objection from the defense. His testimony was concerned mainly with that statement. The prosecution, in its argument to the jury, made no reference to this agent-witness. While the court might properly have made the inquiry, we find, under these circumstances, no prejudice in its failure to make it. It is apparent, we think, that even under the more rigid District of Columbia approach the failure, on this record, would not be held to be reversible error.” Id. at 105 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langley v. State“when important testimony is anticipated from certain categories of witnesses, whose official or semi-official status is such that a juror might reasonably be more, or less, inclined to credit their testimony, a query as to whether a juror would have such an inclination is not only appropriate but should be given if requested. Failure to make appropriate inquiry, when requested, does not necessarily require reversal; the issue turns on the degree of impact which the testi mony in question would be likely to have had on the jury and what part such testimony played on the jury as a whole.”
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.