United States v. Cotter’s Empirical Analysis
60 F.2d 689 · 1932
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Dennis v. United States (1966), Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States (1959)
89 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Graves v. United States · United States v. Garsson · Mitchell v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co. · People v. . Cohen
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] judge is not required to intervene here any more than in any other issue of fact. He must indeed, as he always must, keep the prosecution in a criminal case within bounds; ... just as he must keep passion out of the debate and hold the parties to the issues. But he is not charged with correcting their non sequi-turs; the jury are to find these for themselves.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When both sides fail to call a witness who knows something of the facts, their conduct, like anything else they do, is a circumstance which a jury may use. If both can call him and he is impartial, ordinarily it will have little weight; if it appear that he would naturally side with one party, it is reasonable to expect that he does not use him for good reason; and that is fair argument for the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tavoulareas v. Piro“(i) t would only promote irresponsible hesitation to tell (the jury) that they must reserve their decision altogether until they got through; the appellants had no right in (the jury's) subsequent vacillations.”
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.