Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.2d 137 - Knight v. Hudspeth

Knight v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.2d 137 · 1940

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Barnes v. Hunter (1951), Gantz v. United States (1942)

32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

19019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Knewel v. Egan · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Coy · Ex parte Parks

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

  1. ““(3) It is well settled that defects in an indictment, not going to the jurisdiction of the court which pronounced sentence, may not be raised on habeas corpus. Hence, on habeas corpus the question is not whether the indictment is vulnerable to direct attack by motion or demurrer, but whether it is so fatally defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. (Citing cases in note.) “(4) If there is a federal offense which the indictment apparently attempts to charge, and the court has jurisdiction over such offense and over the person of the accused, the sufficiency of the indictment is not open to challenge on habeas corpus. (Citing cases in note.) “(5) The elements of the offense sought to be charged, the construction to be put on the indictment, and its sufficiency were all matters the determination of which rested primarily with the trial court. If it erred in determining them, its judg'ment was not for that reason void." (Citing cases in note.)”
    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.