Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 U.S. 210 - In the Matter of Walter J Gregory

In the Matter of Walter J Gregory’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923), Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (1911)

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 17 states

150191119201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Hyde v. Shine · Coy · Ex parte Parks

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * we are not concerned with the question whether the information was sufficient, or whether the acts set forth in the agreed statement constituted a crime, — that is to say, whether the court propérly applied the law, — if it be found that' the court had jurisdiction to try the issues and to render the judgment.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"In hearing this application, this court does not sit to review the correctness of the conclusion of the Police Court as to the violation of the statute by the petitioner, or of the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District as to the sufficiency of the information filed against him. The question here is not one of guilt or innocence, but simply whether the court below had jurisdiction to try the issues; and, as we find that the statute conferred that jurisdiction, the application for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The attack is thus not upon the jurisdiction and authority of the court (below) to proceed to investigate and determine the truth of the charge, but upon the sufficiency of the evidence to show the guilt of the accused. This has never been held to be within the province of a writ of habeas corpus. Upon habeas corpus the court examines only the power and authority of the court to act, not the correctness of its conclusions.””
    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.