Hudspeth v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
120 F.2d 962 · 1941
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably Hoffman v. Halden (1959), Fitzgerald v. Estelle (1974)
52 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 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 Hyde v. United States · United States v. Falcone · Burton v. United States · Hyde v. United States · Hyde v. Shine
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a vast difference between lacking the effective assistance of competent counsel and being denied the right to have the effective assistance of competent counsel. It is the denial of the right to have such assistance that gives the right to challenge a judgment of conviction by writ of habeas corpus. It is held without exception that the right to have counsel may be waived and that it is only when it is not waived that the validity of the proceedings may be challenged by writ of habeas corpus. “The undisputed evidence is that appellee was represented by counsel of his own selection; that if counsel was drunk that condition was not apparent to the trial judge; that ap-pellee did not call the condition of his counsel to the court’s attention; and aside from a vague statement made by appellee, the record is conclusive that no request was made that the court appoint other counsel to represent appellee. The record fails to support the conclusion of the court below that the judgment of the Minnesota court was void because appel-lee was denied his constitutional right to be represented by counsel.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is necessary to allege and prove an overt act,”
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.