Price v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.2d 806 · 1942
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1995 · most notably Price v. Johnston (1948), Kramer v. BD. OF ADJUST., SEA GIRT. (1965)
47 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 461
Relies on Weeks v. United States · Agnello v. United States · Marron v. United States · Gouled v. United States · Ex parte Lange
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.
““ * * * The plain purpose of the statute ‘was to afford a method of relief through which a party to a suit may avoid trial before a judge having a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of the opposite party. That sought to be relieved against is a personal bias or prejudice — a bias or prejudice possessed by the judge specifically applicable to or directed against suitor making the affidavit or in favor of his opponent.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the allegedly illegally procured evidence was offered during the course of the prosecution, and objection was made thereto, it was the duty and the right of the trial judge to rule thereon. The right of a trial judge to make a ruling during the course of a trial carries with it the possibility of ruling wrongly as well as correctly. It is absurd to assert that the jurisdiction of the court hinges upon the mere right or wrong of a ruling on the admissibility of evidence during the course of a trial; that if the court’s ruling on an objection made be correct, the court continues to retain jurisdiction, but if it errs, the entire proceeding is void. If the trial court erred, and the error was prejudicial, reversal would follow on appeal, as in other prejudicial error, but the mistake would not thereby deprive the trial court of jurisdiction so that the convicted person, thereafter whenever he saw fit, could launch a collateral attack upon a judgment, valid upon its face. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graham v. Squier“Motion to overrule Respondent’s return and issue writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Price v. Johnston
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.