Biddle v. Shirley’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.2d 566 · 1926
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006
12 federal appellate · 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
Relies on People Ex Rel. Trainor v. Baker · Howard v. United States · Scott v. Spiegel · Taintor v. Taylor · Biddle v. Thiele
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The judgment of the court is that the defendant, on the first count of the Indictment be confined in the United States penitentiary at McNeil Island, state of Washington, for the term and period of two (2) years, and, on the second count a like term and period is also imposed; said terms and periods of imprisonment not to run concurrently.’ The commitment charged imprisonment ‘for the term and period of two years on each of the first and third counts of the indictment, said terms and periods to run consecutively’. After having served the full term of the sentence imposed upon him under the first count, Shirley filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the sentence upon the second count was null and void. The warden filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The district court overruled the motion and ordered that Shirley be discharged. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for this Circuit held, of course, that the prisoner was detained, not by virtue of the warrant of commitment, but on account of the judgment and sentence; and that the commitment cannot vary nor contradict the judgment upon which it is based. It held, however, that since Shirley had pleaded guilty to the third count of the indictment, the trial court should have delayed the order of discharge a sufficient time to permit the proper authority, towit, the court in which he was tried and convicted, to enter sentence upon said third count. The order discharging Shirley from custody was modi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Buie v. King“[t]he prisoner is detained, not by virtue of the warrant of commitment, but on account of the judgment and sentence. The mitti-mus is predicated upon the judgment of conviction and must be in substantial accord therewith. It, of course, cannot vary or contradict the judgment upon which it is based.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Orte
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.