Achtien v. Dowd’s Empirical Analysis
117 F.2d 989 · 1941
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably Diggs v. Welch (1945), Mitchell v. United States (1958)
39 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Mooney v. Holohan · Avery v. State of Alabama
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“MR. PRATHER: ‘United States of America versus Claude Lee Hooper, Harry Stephens, Jr., Criminal 3-77-387, Stipulation: it is hereby stipulated and agreed to, in open Court, by and between the Defendants, Claude Lee Hooper and Harry Stephens, Jr. and their attorney James Newth and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas that all of the evidence and testimony admitted in the jury trial beginning April 3rd, 1978 of U. S. A. versus Mary Hooper, Johnnie Ruth Smith and Loretta Stephens, Criminal Number 3-77-387 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas are admitted into evidence, as part of the evidence, in this trial before the Court of U. S. A. versus Claude Lee Hooper and Harry Stephens, Jr. The parties further stipulate and agree that the transcript, if any, of the proceedings beginning April 3rd 1978, is admitted into evidence, as part of the evidence, in this trial before the Court. Signed by myself and Mr. Hooper, Mr. Stephens as Defendants, and Mr. Newth. And I would ask permission to file this at this time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Accused's counsel had no authority to change (habeas petitioner's) plea nor to stipulate facts without his consent. To hold otherwise would constitute a denial of several rights guaranteed the accused by the Bill of Rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even if it refused to change its views, petitioner would be in a position to apply directly to the Supreme Court for redress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Potter v. Dowd
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.