United States v. Shipp’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.2d 33 · 1969
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Tibbs v. Florida (1982), United States v. United Medical & Surgical Supply Corp. (1993)
21 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Patterson v. Medberry · Hawkins v. United States · Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts · Ewing 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These general principles demonstrate that it is not ordinarily within the appellate court’s province to review a jury’s resolution of issues of credibility. The trial judge, who like the jury had the advantage of observing the witnesses as they testified, is vested with broader power. Even when there has been substantial evidence which required him to submit the case to the jury, he may in his discretion set the verdict aside and grant a new trial if he thinks the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and it is his duty to do so if he is convinced that permitting the verdict to stand would result in a miscarriage of justice. The power exists in both civil and criminal cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)he testimony of the complaint ought to be scrutinized carefully but * * * it may be accepted though uncorroborated if, after considering the entire evidence, including the inherent credibility or incredibility and the probability or improbability of her testimony when viewed in the light of all pertinent circumstances, the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt that her testimony is true; * * * if they accept her testimony, the jury may convict on it alone, if after considering any and all evidence to the contrary they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged crime as comprised of all the elements outlined by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) General rule of privilege. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying against him. (b) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule (1) in proceedings in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of the other or of a child of either * * *. (Emphasis added.)”
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.