Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.2d 442 - Vanover v. Cox

Vanover v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.2d 442 · 1943

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Carbo v. United States (1961), Strand v. Schmittroth (1957)

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

16019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ponzi v. Fessenden · Wall v. Hudspeth · Zerbst v. McPike · Lunsford v. Hudspeth · United States ex rel. Demarois v. Farrell

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

  1. ““The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of a crime in a court of the United States shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of said sentence: Provided, That if any such person shall be committed to a jail or other place of detention to await transportation to the place at which his sentence is to be served, the sentence of such person shall commence to run from the date on which he is received at such jail or other place of detention. No sentence shall prescribe any other method of computing the term.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A person who has violated the criminal statutes of both the federal and a state government may not complain of the order in which he is tried or punished for such offenses. The interested sovereigns may arrange the order of trial and punishment according to their convenience.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he consent of the Virginia authorities”
    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.