Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.2d 291 - Stamphill v. Johnston

Stamphill v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.2d 291 · 1943

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
4
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Thomas v. Brewer (1991), Robinson v. United States (1944)

59 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

23019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 453

Relies on Ponzi v. Fessenden · Waley v. Johnston · Albrecht v. United States · Ableman v. Booth · Ex Parte Johnson

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “physical presence of a defendant before a District Court gives that court complete jurisdiction over him, regardless of how his presence was secured....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * the arrangement made between the two sovereigns, the state and federal governments, does not concern the defendant who has violated the laws of each sovereignty and he cannot in his own right demand priority for the judgment of either.” 15 (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[tjhere is no doubt that the state of Oklahoma, having first acquired jurisdiction over the appellant, was entitled to retain him in custody until he had finished his sentence and could not be required to surrender him to the custody of the United States marshal for trial in the federal court for an offense committed in violation of federal law.”
    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.