19 Cal. 2d 488 - In Re Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 252 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 273 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Neal v. State of California (1960), In Re Dixon (1953)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 252 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
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Thornhill v. Alabama
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 273 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'It must never be forgotten that the writ of habeas corpus is the precious safeguard of personal liberty and there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired ... the rule is not so inflexible that it may not yield to exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.' ... There are other situations in which habeas corpus is used, not as a test of jurisdiction, but to review a question of law that cannot otherwise be raised or is so important as to render the ordinary procedure inadequate. Thus, it lies to test whether there is probable cause to justify the committing magistrate in holding petitioner for trial. ... It also lies to test whether the complaint charges a public offense ... even though this question falls within the jurisdiction of the trial court and may be raised on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re McVickers · In Re Seeley“Language prohibiting conduct that may be prohibited and conduct that may not affords no reasonably ascertainable standard of guilt and is therefore too uncertain and vague to be enforced. [Cases cited.] A conviction based upon such a statute cannot stand even though the acts of misconduct in the particular case could be validly prohibited by properly drafted legislation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“allege any fact to show either that his imprisonment or detention is unlawful, or that he is entitled to his discharge. The court or judge must thereupon proceed in a summary way to hear such proof as may be produced against such imprisonment or detention, or in favor of the same, and to dispose of such party as the justice of the case may require. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re McVickers · In Re Seeley
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.