Jones v. Biddle’s Empirical Analysis
131 F.2d 853 · 1942
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2004 · most notably Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. (2004), Ahrens v. Clark (1948)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 452 · 28 U.S.C. § 454 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 28 U.S.C. § 456 · 28 U.S.C. § 458
Relies on Ponzi v. Fessenden · Wales v. Whitney · Sanders v. Allen · Galatas v. United States · Ex parte Gouyet
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 2244. Finality of determination ****** (b) When after an evidentiary hearing on the merits of a material factual issue, or after a hearing on the merits of an issue of law, a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court has been denied by a court of the United States or a justice or judge of the United States release from custody or other remedy on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of such person need not be entertained by a court of the United States or a justice or judge of the United States unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for the writ, and unless the court, justice, or judge is satisfied that the applicant has not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Florida““The statutes relating to habeas corpus manifestly contemplate that the respondent named in an application for habeas corpus shall be the person, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, who has the physical custody of the person of the petitioner and who is capable of producing him in court. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 , 5 S.Ct. 1050 , 29 L.Ed. 277 ; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 301 , 100 F.2d 717, 718 . The power of a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus is limited to its territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 452 ; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230, 233 ; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 307 , 100 F.2d 717 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Connett
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.