In re Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The information in this case charges the commission of an offense, and the court having jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and jurisdiction of the subject matter had jurisdiction to proceed. Upon the petitioner’s plea of guilty the court adjudged him guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him accordingly. The information not charging the petitioner with aiding and assisting in the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree, the judgment and sentence of the court was clearly erroneous. The question then arises, Was the act of the court within its jurisdiction? If it is merely erroneous and within the jurisdiction of the court, the question cannot be reached in a 'habeas corpus proceeding. The statutes of this state prescribe plainly what questions may be considered upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus. “Sec. 3427. The court or judge must make a final order to remand the prisoner if it shall appear that he is retained in custody either: “(1) “(2) By virtue of the final judgment or order of any competent court of civil or criminal jurisdiction or of any execution issued upon such judgment or order. “By sec. 3428 it is provided: “But no such court or officer, on the return of any such writ, shall have power to inquire into the legality or justice of any judgment, order or execution specified in the next preceding section (sec. 3427).” (Page 550.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Elliott

2. ““The merits of this case are not in any way before us for review. The record is silent as to the circumstances attending the commission of the crime with which the petitioner is charged. If by reason of his neglect, or want of knowledge as to his rights, the petitioner has been unjustly punished, or his punishment is, in view of all the circumstances, excessive, sec. 6 of art. V has vested with the governor of this state the power to relieve the petitioner.” (Page 555.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Elliott

3. ““It is . . . well settled that one who is present aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony may be informed against as a principal and convicted as a principal, although he may have been guilty only of assisting in the commission of the offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scheldberger v. State