Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 F.2d 346 - Vause v. United States

Vause v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

53 F.2d 346 · 1931

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
July 1983
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 1983 · most notably United States v. Pugliese (1945), United States v. Tomaiolo (1957)

40 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

150193119401950196019701980decided

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 Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Crawford v. United States · Isaacs v. United States · John Jack v. State of Kansas · Harrison 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Closely akin to this class of exceptions to evidence which put Montgomery, Vause, and Schuchman into the category of co-workers was the evidence that Montgomery was known to be a man who could and would indulge in trickery and fraudulent financial schemes, and was an ex-convict because of his previous practices in that regard. When Montgomery was put upon the stand to testify for the government, the district attorney introduced him to the jury by questions and answers which brought out his real character. His credibility as a witness was an important matter for the jury to decide in order to get at the truth, and there is certainly no point in condemning the district attorney for frankly disclosing at the outset what would enable the jury to do its duty in that regard. The complaint now made rather savors of the thought that he stole a march on these defendants in not letting that phase of the matter wait until they could, if they saw fit, bring out the facts on cross-examination and make the most of their apparent desire to put the witness in his proper place and themselves show that the case against them rested in part on the word of a man of abandoned character. * * *."”
    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.