Krause v. Chartier’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 898 · 1968
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Butera (1970), United States v. Projansky (1972)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Ballard v. United States · Ross v. United States · New England Enterprises, Inc. v. United States · Marion J. Berguido, Individually v. Eastern Air Lines, Incorporated
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“did not fulfill the duty that is upon the objecting party to make clear to the district court that he is pressing his point, and what point it is.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Nonetheless, plaintiff has not been able to show, or suggest, any prejudice, and we are not persuaded of any. We see no imminent danger of ultimate unrepresentative selection such, as appeared in New England Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1968, 400 F.2d 58 . In the absence of the likelihood of some general prejudice, we find inapplicable to rule of Ballard v. United States, 1946 329 U.S. 187, 195 , 67 S.Ct. 261, 265 , 91 L.Ed. 181 (where class of citizens systematically excluded from jury panels, “reversible error does not depend on a showing of prejudice in an individual case”). [At page 901.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lujan v. People
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.