Suttles v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 760 · 1954
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Calley v. Callaway (1975), Watson v. Ol McCotter (1986)
26 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Burns v. Wilson · In re Grimley · Yamashita Yamashita v. Styer US · Ex parte Reed · Kahn v. Anderson
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the range of inquiry in acting upon applications for habeas corpus for persons confined by sentence of military courts is more narrow than in civil cases.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court properly found that the alleged inadequacies of counsel could have been but were not raised in the military courts and may not therefore be considered when presented for the first time in the application of habeas corpus. The civil courts may review only claims of infringement of constitutional rights which the military courts refused to give fair consideration. Burns v. Wilson, infra. Obviously, it cannot be said that they have refused to fairly consider claims not asserted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rushing v. Wilkinson“The scope of judicial review of military habeas corpus cases is well established. Court inquiry is limited to whether the court-martial had jurisdiction of the person and the offense charged, whether the accused was accorded due process of law as contemplated and insured by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and whether competent military tribunals gave fair and full consideration to all the procedural safeguards deemed essential to a fair trial under military law.”
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.