Cabral v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
961 F.2d 998 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2023
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Wingo v. Wedding · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Blasius v. United States · Anderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Dixson 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a trial court allows an ... alternate juror[] to deliberate with the regular jurors ... an inherently prejudicial error is cona-mitted, and the substantial rights of the parties are violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 47 clearly indicates that a district court has no discretion to allow alternate jurors to deliberate with the regular jurors, absent the consent of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. SEC v. Sargent
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.