Erving v. Sigler’s Empirical Analysis
413 F.2d 593 · 1969
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1980
5 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Griffin v. California · Malloy v. Hogan · Harrington v. California · Linkletter v. Walker
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * In view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (June 2, 1969), we feel that the admission of this testimony cannot be deemed harmful in this case. Like Harrington , the case against Erving “was not woven from circumstantial evidence” ( 395 U.S. at 254 , 89 S.Ct. at 1729 ) and it seems clear that the jury’s determination would not have been altered had not this evidence been produced. As in Harrington , the other evidence was so overwhelming that we conclude that this state conviction should be left undisturbed.””
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.