Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 A2D 915 - Wright v. United States

Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
4
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably In the Interest of O.A. (1998), Appeal of H.R. (1990)

54 state decisions

2401986199020002010decided

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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Alford v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Anthony v. United States · Curley 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The essence of [discretionary] decision-making is the trial court’s judgment in exercising that discretion,” (James) Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 361 (D.C.1979), for a discretionary decision is based not only on hard facts but also — and often more importantly — on perceptions of demeanor[,] or the pace of the trial, and, ultimately, of the probable impact of counsel and witnesses on the jury. The parties, therefore, are entitled to have the trial judge exercise that discretion, unfettered by erroneous legal thinking (citation omitted); they need not settle for the substituted judgment of an appellate court that would sustain the ruling on a plausible, alternative ground without benefit of all the data, derived from perceptions at trial, that inherently go into a discretionary ruling. (Citation omitted.) Were an appellate court to substitute its own judgment, the court would rationalize a result which the trial court itself, properly informed of the law, might not have reached, given factors at trial which the appellate court could not possibly perceive.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not `inevitably' lead to only one acceptable result.”
    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.