Wilson v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 1987 · most notably Ramsey v. Hand (1959), State v. Armstrong (1987)
43 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 Bailey v. Hudspeth · Brandt v. Hudspeth · Long v. Hudspeth · McKie v. State
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When judgment is rendered, or sentence of imprisonment is imposed, upon a plea or verdict of guilty, a record thereof shall be made upon the journal of the court, which record among other things shall contain a statement of the offense charged, and under what statute; the plea or verdict and the judgment rendered or sentence imposed, and under what statute, ... It shall be the duty of the court personally to examine with care the entry prepared for the journal, or the journal when written up, and to sign the same and to certify to the correctness thereof.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The journal entry of judgment in this case does not comply with the above provisions of the statute [G. S. 1961 Supp., 62-1516]. Such journal entry, being merely incomplete, does not render the judgment either void or voidable. The description of the charge is definite, the verdict of the jury is clear, and the judgment and sentence leave no doubt as to punishment inflicted. The verdict is valid. If the sentence imposed had been void, the proper procedure would be to return the defendant to the district court of Lyon county for resentence. (Brandt v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 601 , 178 P. 2d 224 .) We do not feel such a procedure is necessary here, as the sentence is not void, but the journal entry is merely incomplete . . .” (pp. 668, 669.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Moses
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.