Cherry v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.2d 334 · 1935
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1996
17 federal appellate ·
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 Gerard v. United States · Reid v. United States · Rabideau 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * we are not unmindful of the rule which makes the jury rather than the court the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses. * * * “ * * * The issue, however, is not one of weighing the testimony, nor of credibility. It is one where we are called upon to ascertain the existence of any evidence which tends to show that appellant [de fendant] knew the goods which he purchased were stolen. [Italics supplied.] “The only circumstantial evidence, which unexplained, pointed to such a conclusion consists of the facts that (a) the goods were purchased from a thief, (b) shortly after the theft, (c) without obtaining a receipt or other evidence of the transaction, and (d) payment for the goods in cash. “The explanation offered by appellant is not disputed. It is not inherently unreasonable, and we are unable for that reason to reject it. * * *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . appellant was in the grocery business, the conduct of which necessitated the purchase of merchandise of the character here involved. He stated that he sold for cash and bought for cash. He did not keep his money in a bank. The practice of not depositing money in a bank was not unusual in 1932, 1933, and January, 1934, and therefore the adoption of such practice was not suggestive of an attempt to avoid creating evidence usable in a criminal prosecution. “While the evidence showed he purchased the goods from a thief, or the representative of a thief, and that the thief had obtained possession only a short time before, yet the fact remains that he purchased goods which he needed and paid a fair market price therefore; that the transaction took place at his store and in the daytime.” Id., at 336.”
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.