Warger v. Shauers’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.3d 606 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Tanner v. United States · Clark v. United States · Government of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau · Peitzmeier v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“about whether (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Zook · Warger v. Shauers“[j]urors' personal experiences do not constitute extraneous information; it is unavoidable they will bring such innate experiences into the jury room.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Zook · Warger v. Shauers“[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Zook · Warger v. Shauers
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.