Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.1d 639 - Deming v. McClaughry

Deming v. McClaughry’s Empirical Analysis

113 F. 639 · 1902

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

50190219101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 · In re Ayers · Fisk · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · United States v. Pridgeon

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

  1. ““A court-martial is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is a creature of the statute, a temporary judicial body authorized to exist by acts of Congress under specified circumstances for a specific purpose. It has no power or jurisdiction which the statutes do not confer upon it. The Articles of War specify the officers who aré empowered to convene these courts (articles 72, 73, 74, 81, 82), the officers who may compose them (articles 75, 76, 77, 78, SO), and the persons and charges which they are empowered to try (articles 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83). It necessarily follows that the jurisdiction of every court-martial, and hence the validity of each of its judgments, is conditioned by these indispensable prerequisites: (1) That it was convened by an officer empowered by the statutes to call it; (2) that the officers whom he commanded to sit upon it were of those whom he was authorized' by the Articles of War to detail for that purpose; (3) that the court thus constituted was invested by the acts of Congress with power to try the person and the offense charged; and (4) that its sentence was in accordance with the Revised Statutes. The absence of any of these indispensable conditions renders the judgment and sentence of a court-martial coram non judice, and absolutely void, because such a judgment and sentence is rendered without authority of law and without jurisdiction. Runkle v. U. S., 122 U. S. 543 , 546, 7 Sup. Ct. 1141 , 30 L. Ed. 1167 ; Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 7 , 30; Wis”
    2 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.