United States v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.2d 269 · 1925
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2013
2 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. · United States v. Hutto · Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co. · Randolph v. Donaldson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In cases where a person is committed to prison pursuant to his conviction of a prison offense, the jailer has no discretion (except in cases of emergency) but to obey the warrant of commitment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The custodian of a prison upon receiving a commitment can do only what the commitment orders him to do, that is, receive and safely keep the prisoner, so that the latter may be thence discharged in due course of law. The duty of an officer in executing the mandate of a judicial order in the nature of a commitment is purely ministerial and his power with respect thereto is limited and restricted to compliance with its terms. ... . Under common law it is a misdemeanor for sheriff or jailer having lawful charge of a prisoner to voluntarily or negligently permit him to depart from his custody, no matter how short a time the departure might be.”
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.