Sanderlin v. Smyth’s Empirical Analysis
138 F.2d 729 · 1943
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Dorsey v. Gill (1945), Parker v. United States (1950)
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 453
Relies on Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Mooney v. Holohan · Frank v. Mangum · Moore v. Dempsey · United States Kennedy v. Tyler
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He had an adequate remedy under state law of which he availed himself when he filed petition with the Supreme Court of Appeals for writ of habeas corpus; and the fact that relief was denied on that application gives rise to the inference, not that the remedy was inadequate, but that he was not entitled to relief. If not satisfied with the action of that court, he should have applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for review by certiorari.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ordinarily, failure to raise a constitutional question during trial amounts to waiver thereof (United States v. Brady, 4 Cir., 133 F. 2d 476, 481 ) ; and only where failure to raise the question at the trial was due to ignorance, duress or other reason for which petitioner should not be held responsible, may resort be had to habeas corpus in the federal courts, and, even in these cases, only where it is made to appear that there has been such gross violation of constitutional right as to deny to the prisoner the substance of a fair trial and thus oust the court of jurisdiction to impose sentence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There has been some confusion of thought recently with regard to the right of persons imprisoned under judgments of state courts which they claim to have been obtained in violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to apply to the lower federal courts for release under habeas corpus. It may be useful, therefore, to summarize the rules which we understand to be applicable in such cases. They are:”
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.