Barnes v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
188 F.2d 86 · 1951
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably United States v. Hoyland (1959), Kreuter v. United States (1952)
63 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Knewel v. Egan · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · United States v. Pridgeon · Coy
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[W]hen the offense is one over which the court has jurisdiction and the court acquires jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it has jurisdiction and power to determine the elements which constitute the offense and the sufficiency of the indictment, and such jurisdiction necessarily embraces the power to make an erroneous, as well as a correct decision.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(3) It is well settled that defects in an indictment, not going to the jurisdiction of the court which pronounced sentence, may not be raised on habeas corpus. Hence, on habeas corpus the question is not whether the indictment is vulnerable to direct attack by motion or demurrer, but whether it is so fatally defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. (Citing cases in note.) “(4) If there is a federal offense which the indictment apparently attempts to charge, and the court has jurisdiction over such offense and over the person of the accused, the sufficiency of the indictment is not open to challenge on habeas corpus. (Citing cases in note.) “(5) The elements of the offense sought to be charged, the construction to be put on the indictment, and its sufficiency were all matters the determination of which rested primarily with the trial court. If it erred in determining them, its judg'ment was not for that reason void." (Citing cases in note.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Section 2255, supra, does not give a prisoner the right to obtain a review, first by the court which imposed the sentence and then on appeal from a denial of a motion to errors or must be raised by timely appeal. The purpose of the section was not to confer a broader right of attack upon a judgment and sentence than might theretofore have been made by habeas corpus, but rather to provide that the attack which theretofore might have been made in some other court through resort to habeas corpus, must now be made by motion in the sentencing court, unless it shall appear that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the prisoner’s detention. While the form of attack is direct, the grounds therefor are limited to matters that may be raised on collateral attack.” 1”
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.