Kirsch v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Probation is not a matter of right but a matter of grace and clemency and when granted it confers no vested right upon a defendant. It is a system of tutelage under the control of the court having jurisdiction over the convicted defendant and it is concerned with the rehabilitation of moral character.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaplan v. United States · United States v. Longknife

2. ““Probation is thus conferred as a privilege, and cannot be demanded as a right. It is a matter of favor, not of contract. There is no requirement that it must be granted on a specified showing. The defendant stands convicted; he faces punishment and cannot insist on terms or strike a bargain. To accomplish the purpose of the statute, an exceptional degree of flexibility in administration is essential. It is necessary to individualize each case, to give that careful, humane and comprehensive consideration to the particular situation of each offender which would be possible only in the exercise of a broad discretion. The provisions of the Act are adapted to this end. It authorizes courts of original jurisdiction, when satisfied ‘that the ends of justice and the best interests of the public, as well as the defendant, will be subserved,’ to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and ‘to place the defendant upon probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as they may deem best.’ “There is no suggestion in the statute that the scope of the discretion conferred for the purpose of making the grant is narrowed in providing for its modification or revocation. The authority for the latter purpose immediately follows that given for the former, and is in terms equally broad. ‘The court may revoke or modify any condition of probation, or may change the period of probation.’ There are no limiting requirements as to the formulation of charges, notice of charges, or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trueblood Longknife v. United States

3. ““This court will not on appeal disturb the action of a trial court resting wholly in the exercise of its judicial discretion except for an abuse of that discretion. Burns v. United States, supra [9 Cir., 59 F. 2d 721 ]; Manning v. United States, supra [5 Cir., 161 F.2d 827 ]; Bennett v. United States, 8 Cir., 158 F. 2d 412 ; Jianole v. United States, supra [8 Cir., 58 F.2d 115 ]; Home Owners’ Loan Corporation v. Huffman, 8 Cir., 134 F.2d 314 ; Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 8 Cir., 95 F.2d 414 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaplan v. United States