Arnold v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.2d 499 · 1938
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1986 · most notably People v. Dail (1943), United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. (1946)
20 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 632
Relies on Berger v. United States · Caminetti v. United States · Alford v. United States · Hagner v. United States · Quercia 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A reasonably full cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects of his examination in chief is the right, not the mere privilege, of the party against whom he is called, and as a rule, a denial of this right is a prejudicial error. It is only after the right has been substantially and fairly exercised that the allowance of cross-examination becomes discretionary.”
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.