Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 F.1d 798 - In re Graves

In re Graves’s Empirical Analysis

117 F. 798 · 1902

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 1991
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1991

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

401902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Reynolds v. States · Ex parte Lange · In re Bonner · Williams v. United States · Basset 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ It involves only the inquiry whether the court possessed the power to recall the prisoner, set aside the sentence, and impose another modified sentence during the same term, notwithstanding the fact alleged that execution of the former sentence had commenced; and, whatever diversity of opinion appears in other jurisdictions, the doctrine is established in the federal courts that such power exists, and that it is applicable as well where the original sentence was in excess of jurisdiction. [Citing, among other cases, Ex parte Lange and Basset v. United States, supra.] In Ex parte Lange, supra, the doctrine so stated is distinctly recognized, but the case is distinguished, as one where the statute authorized imprisonment,' or fine, in the alternative only, and the sentence imposed both; and the majority opinion merely holds that new sentence of imprisonment alone cannot be imposed after payment of the fine, which operated as a satisfaction of the prior judgment. The sentence under which this petitioner is imprisoned isdn all respects more favorable to him than was the original sentence, and escape therefrom is sought on the ground of change in the place of imprisonment after he had ‘ entered upon the service ’ of the first sentence. “As the place of imprisonment was discretionary, and in no sense affected ,the-*jurisdiction, and the power of the court over its own judgment-.within the term is undeniable (Ex parte. Lange,; supra), I am clearly of "opinion that the sentence and”
    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.