Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.2d 865 - Wall v. Hudspeth

Wall v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.2d 865 · 1940

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
5
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably United States v. Santore (1960), Commonwealth Ex Rel. Stevens v. Myers (1965)

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

35019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 McNally v. Hill · Ponzi v. Fessenden · United States v. Daugherty · Riddle v. Dyche · National Surety Co. v. Coriell

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

  1. ““ ‘When the court of one sovereign takes a person into its custody on a criminal charge he remains in the jurisdiction of that sovereign until it has been exhausted, to the exclusion of the courts of the other sovereign. That rule rests upon principles of comity, and it exists between federal and state courts. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U. S. 254 , 42 S. Ct. 309 , 66 L. Ed. 607 , 22 A. L. R. 879; Grant v. Guernsey, 10 Cir., 63 F. 2d 163 , certiorari denied 289 U. S. 744 , 53 S. Ct. 688 , 77 L. Ed. 1491 . But either the federal or a state government may voluntarily surrender its prisoner to the other without the consent of the prisoner, and in such circumstances the question of jurisdiction and custody is purely one of comity between the two sovereigns, not a personal right of the prisoner which he can assert in a proceeding of this kind. Ponzi v. Fessenden, supra; In re Andrews, D. C., 236 F. 300 .’ ””
    5 later decisions 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.