Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 F.2d 401 - Henry v. Hodges

Henry v. Hodges’s Empirical Analysis

171 F.2d 401 · 1948

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2002
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2002

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

801948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Martin v. Mott · Kahn v. Anderson · Swaim v. United States · Oakley v. . Aspinwall · Galveston & Houston Investment Co. v. Grymes

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

  1. ““There remains the . . . question . . . whether any member of the Judge Advocate General’s Department was ‘available’ at the time. We cannot say that it was not more in the interest of justice to detail Beatty to defend Feltman than to put him on the court; or that it was not better judgment to make Swan a prosecutor than a judge .... The whole question is especially one of discretion; and, if it is ever reviewable, certainly the record at bar is without evidence which would justify a review. The commanding officer who convenes the court must decide what membership will be least to the ‘injury of the service,’ and what officers are ‘available.’ ‘Available’ means more than presently ‘accessible’; it demands a balance between the conflicting demands upon the service, and it must be determined on the spot.” 171 F. 2d at 403 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]here is no inherent reason to deny power to a judicial officer to review his own judgments, even though they be final and decide the very merits of the cause; at common law, this was permissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.