Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 F.2d 668 - Schultz v. Zerbst

Schultz v. Zerbst’s Empirical Analysis

73 F.2d 668 · 1934

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
December 1997
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably United States v. Rosenberg (1952), Smith v. United States (1959)

43 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1901934194019501960197019801990decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Weems v. United States · McNally v. Hill · Gavieres v. United States · Morgan v. Devine

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But the offense charged in the first count of the indictment was an assault with intent to rob the custodians of the mail while that charged in the following counts was the robbery of such custodians and the putting their lives in jeopardy by the use of guns and pistols in effecting that robbery. The Congress imposed a penally of imprisonment for not more than ten years for this assault with intent to rob and a penalty of imprisonment for twenty-five years for this robbery and the putting the lives of the custodians in jeopardy in effecting it. The evidence which would sustain the offense charged in the first count of the indictment, the assault with intent to rob, would be utterly insufficient to sustain the offense of robbery by putting the lives of the custodians in jeopardy, and the trial court had plenary jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner to imprisonment for twenty-five years for the offense charged in the second count of the indictment.””
    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.