Aeby v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.2d 1 · 1969
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2008
9 federal appellate · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Public Service Commission v. United States · Aeby v. United States · Smith v. United States · Grooms v. Minute-Maid
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The movant under section 2255 must allege specific facts which, if true, would constitute reversible error; otherwise, the district court must deny the motion to vacate. Smith v. United States, 252 F.2d 369 , 371 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 357 U.S. 939 , 78 S.Ct. 1388 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1552 (1958); Davis v. United States, 205 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1963) (per curiam). The appellant here alleged, as a mere conclusion, that prejudicial remarks had been made by the judge and prosecutor. This allegation was clearly insufficient to justify relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. However, since the question of prejudicial remarks during closing argument was not considered on direct appeal, Aeby v. United States, 206 F.2d [295], 296 (5th Cir. 1953), or on any subsequent motion to vacate, 255 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1958); 267 F.2d [540], 541 (5th Cir. 1959), our affirmance is without prejudice to the movant to perfect his motion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The movant under section 2255 must allege specific facts which, if true, would constitute reversible error; otherwise, the district court must deny the motion to vacate.”
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.