McGee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “"The phrase `exceeded the jurisdiction conferred,' and the phrase `acting illegally,' both refer to action by such inferior tribunal beyond, not within, its jurisdiction. Referring to the phrase `acting illegally,' this Court, in the Hunt case, supra, said: `Without undertaking to define that phrase of the statute with exactness or to say what it includes, we think it clear that the common-law writ, as distinguished from the statutory writ, or certiorari in lieu of appeal, may not be resorted to for the correction of technical or formal errors, not affecting jurisdiction or power, or for the correction of defects that are not radical, amounting to an illegality that is fundamental, as distinguished from an irregularity.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitwell v. State · 53 Tenn. App. 663 - Puckett v. Broome

2. ““The Court's supervisory jurisdiction by certiorari must not be confused with its ordinary appellate jurisdiction. Nor must the distinction be overlooked between common-law writ of certiorari, now put in form of a statute (T.C.A. sec. 27-801) and the statutory writ, or certiorari in lien of an appeal (T.C.A. sec. 27-802). State ex rel. McMorrow v. Hunt, 137 Tenn. 243 251 , 192 S.W. 931 , 933; Helton v. State, 194 Tenn. 299, 301, 305 , 250 S.W.2d 540, 541, 542 ; Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Railroad & Public Utilities Commission, 195 Tenn. 593, 600, 604 , 261 S.W.2d 233 . “The common-law writ of certiorari, the writ here sought, may be granted ‘in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred, or is acting illegally, when, in the judgment of the Court, there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy/ (T.C.A. sec. 27-801)/’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pack v. Royal-Globe Insurance Companies

3. “It must be borne in mind that the functions of certiorari are simply to ascertain the validity of proceedings before a court of justice, either on the charge of their invalidity, because the essential forms of law have not been observed, or on that of the want of jurisdiction in the court entertaining them. The writ has never been employed to inquire into the correctness of the judgment rendered where the court had jurisdiction, and was therefore competent. Hence it has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the court on a certiorari must be restricted to an examination into the external validity of the proceedings had in the lower court. It cannot be exercised to review the judgment as to its intrinsic correctness either on the law or on the facts of the case. The supervisory powers of the court should not be confounded with its appellate jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yokley v. State