Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.2d 273 - Hiatt v. Hiatt

Hiatt v. Hiatt’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.2d 273 · 1949

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
September 1975
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1975

5 federal appellate ·

501949195019601970decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1479 · 10 U.S.C. § 1564

Relies on Wade v. Hunter · Bridges v. Wixon · United States Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration at Port of New York · In re Neagle · Wade v. Mayo

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

  1. “(1) Accused was convicted on the theory that although he was on duty as a sentry at the time of the offense, it was incumbent upon him to retreat from his post of duty. “(2) Accused has been convicted of murder on evidence that does not measure to malice, premeditation, or deliberation. “(3) The record reveals that the law member appointed was grossly incompetent. “(4) There was no pre-trial investigation whatever upon the charge of murder. “(5) The record shows that counsel appointed to defend the accused was incompetent, gave no preparation to the case, and submitted only a token defense. “(6) The appellate reviews by the Army reviewing authorities reveal a total misconception of the applicable law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “certainly in times of peace, that the presence of a duly qualified law member from the Judge Advocate General’s Department be made a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of such court-martial proceeding, except in the single instance where such officer is actually, and in fact, ‘not available.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an officer of some other branch of the service selected by [him] . . . as specially qualified to perform the duties of law member.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.