Henry Zahn v. William W. Kipp, Sr., U. S. Marshal’s Empirical Analysis
218 F.2d 898 · 1955
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 1987
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Zerbst v. McPike · Gunton v. Squier · Hode v. Sanford · United States ex rel. Chasteen v. Denemark
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““THE COURT: That is true, but ho is now serving a sentence of the State of California, and a request has been made that I make this sentence to run concurrent. I can do one of two things. I can give him a sentence and have it run consecutive, or I can give him a great big long sentence and have it run concurrent with the state sentence. He has got one to fourteen years. I don’t know how many years he will serve. He probably won’t serve fourteen, but he could serve fourteen. “MR. PRIVET: That is questionable, your Honor. However, I would still request that the Court impose a sentence, if- you are minded so to do, on the basis of making it concurrent with any sentence being presently served in the state penal institution. “THE COURT: I think he would be better off if I gave him a sentence, straight sentence, rather than have it concurrent. “MR. VAN DE KAMP: The matter of concurrency is strictly a matter of discretion with the Attorney General. The Government would suggest a straight term be given. “THE COURT: I think he will be better off with a straight sentence because if I run it concurrently, I would give him ten or fifteen years. “MR. PRIVET: Very well, your Honor. “THE COURT: It is the judgment of this court you be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for the period of five years on Count 1, five years on Count 2, and five years on Count 3, to run concurrently, to be placed in some institution to be selected by the Attorney General. This sentence is to be serv”
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.