Berumen v. Casady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “For example, in Mingus v. Fairbanks, [ 211 Neb. 81 , 317 N.W.2d 770 (1982)], we held that the trial court could not find the defendant guilty of the uncharged offense of debauching a minor, notwithstanding defendant’s plea of not guilty to pandering, as the former offense was not a lesser offense included with the pandering charge. In so ruling, we quoted with approval from In re McVey, 50 Neb. 481 , 70 N.W. 51 (1897), which was cited with approval in State v. McClarity, 180 Neb. 246 , 142 N.W.2d 152 (1966), as follows: “In McVey , the appellant was charged with the crime of burglary. The jury acquitted the appellant on the charge of burglary, but found him guilty of breaking and entering in the daytime. In discharging appellant from custody, we said at 483-84, 70 N.W. at 52 : ‘The only further question presented is whether the sentence of the court was merely erroneous or whether it was illegal in such a sense as to be void. It may be said that the modem doctrine or idea is that a court must possess jurisdiction not only of the person and subject-matter, but to impose the sentence which is adjudged. If the latter is lacking the sentence is not merely voidable but void. (Black, Judgments, sec. 258; citing, among others, Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. [U.S.], [1]63[, 21 L. Ed. 872 (1874)]; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. [U.S.], 131[, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866)]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S., 417 [, 5 S. Ct. 935 , 29 L. Ed. 89 (1885)]; Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal., 212 ; In re Petty, 22 Kan., 477 . S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McBride

2. “Habeas corpus is a special civil proceeding providing a summary remedy to persons illegally detained. ... A writ of habeas corpus is a remedy which is constitutionally available in a proceeding to challenge and test the legality of a person’s detention, imprisonment, or custodial deprivation of liberty. . . . A writ of habeas corpus in this state is quite limited in comparison to those of federal courts, which allow a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner when he is in custody in violation of the federal Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States. ... It is established that where a judgment is attacked in a way other than a proceeding in the original action to have the judgment vacated, reversed, or modified, or a proceeding in equity to prevent its enforcement, the attack is considered a “collateral attack.” ... An action for habeas corpus is an example of such a collateral attack.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Glantz v. Hopkins