Gideon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.2d 427 · 1931
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Company (1971), United States v. Provoo (1954)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 State v. Lapage · Stewart v. United States · Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co. · Heard v. United States · Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[h]ad such a questionnaire been sent out by attorneys for some of the defendants awaiting trial, we cannot doubt that the proceeding would have been open to severe criticism. We cannot escape the conviction that the sending of the questionnaire under the guise of governmental authority was equally reprehensible. Id., 52 F.2d at 429 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Statements in the opinions of courts are called to our attention to the effect that the limit of cross-examination is discretionary with the trial court, but it is only discretionary without the limits of the right of the party against whom a witness is called to a full and fail-cross-examination of him upon the subjects of his direct examination, and the right of the party in whose behalf he testifies to restrict his cross-examination to the subjects of his direct examination. * * * “The converse of this rule is equally controlling. The party on whose behalf a witness is called has the right to restrict his cross-examination to the subjects of his direct examination, and a violation of this right is reversible error. * * * “ * * But the line of demarcation which limits a rightful cross-examination is clear and well defined, and it rests upon the reason to which attention has been called. It is the line between subjects relative to vvhich the witness was examined upon the direct examination and those concerning which he was not required to testify. * * * ””
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.