James v. Amrine’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Eagles Nj v. United States (1946), State v. Dunn (2016)
2 district · 30 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 Ex parte Parks · Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment · Levell v. Simpson · In re Bion · Engels v. Amrine
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that a proceeding in habeas corpus is not to be regarded as a substitute for appellate review . . . Where a prisoner is held in custody upon regular commitment after conviction and sentence he may not invoke habeas corpus to secure revision of errors that might have been reached by amendment or appeal, where tire court which imposed the sentence had jurisdiction to impose the sentence. It is only in cases where the information, the indictment, or the proceedings were otherwise void so that the court acquired no jurisdiction of the person or the cause, that the remedy of habeas corpus becomes available. We are here speaking, of course, with reference only to alleged insufficiency of the information or of the proceedings in some other respect and not with reference to alleged denial of counsel, due process, or other constitutional guaranty. To state it in a slightly different way, habeas corpus cannot be used to review nonjurisdictional errors and irregularities leading up to judgment . . . The general rule has been variously stated. In Franklin v. Biddle, 5 F. 2d 19 , it was said that the question is whether the indictment was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to enter upon inquiry and make a decision. Our own decisions are in line with the general rule. . . .” (See cases cited therein.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A proceeding in habeas corpus is not to be regarded as a substitute for appellate review. “Habeas corpus cannot be used to review nonjurisdictional errors and irregularities leading up to judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Selbe v. Hoffman
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.