McWilliams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.2d 41 · 1968
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Opinions of the Justices to the House of Representatives (1979), State v. Piskorski (1979)
46 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 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 26 U.S.C. § 7237
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has so saturated the community as to have a probable impact on the prospective jurors”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Despite appellant's suggestions to the contrary we do not believe that the pretrial publicity in the case at bar even remotely resembles the magnitude of prejudicial publicity recently condemned by the Supreme Court. See Sheppard v. Maxwell , 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). We are cognizant that neither a showing of prejudice nor actual exposure of individual members of the jury panel to adverse publicity is required for reversal where outside influences have so infiltrated the community at large as to render the existence of community prejudice against the defendant highly probable." McWilliams , 394 F.2d 44 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n view of the cumulative nature of the rejected evidence, its denial can hardly be said to have prejudiced the appellant.”
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.