Riddle v. Dyche’s Empirical Analysis
262 U.S. 333 · 1923
Citation profile
122 federal appellate · 3 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 250 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Patton v. United States (1930), Heflin v. United States (1959)
122 federal appellate · 3 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Frank v. Mangum · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Ex Parte Lennon · Coy · Tom Tong
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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the trial court had jurisdiction to try and punish the appellant for the offense with which he was charged is not disputed. The attempt is collaterally to impeach the record, showing upon its face that a lawful jury was duly impaneled, sworn, and charged. Appellant’s remedy, as suggested in the mandamus proceeding, was by writ of error. He did not avail himself of it and whatever may have been the cause or excuse for not doing so, habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution, but an independent civil suit. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The power to inquire into facts outside the record, allowed under some circumstances ( In re Mayfield [1891], 141 U.S. 107 , 116, 11 S.Ct. 939 , 35 L.Ed. 635 [638]), cannot be extended to such as are inconsistent with the record. "The Frank Case [ Frank v. Mangum ] relied upon by appellant, does not decide otherwise. The language quoted ([D.C. Ga. 1915] 237 U.S. [309] 331, 35 S.Ct. [582] 589, 59 L.Ed. 969 ), to the effect that the court may `look behind and beyond the record * * * to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the * * * court' and `inquire into jurisdictional facts, whether they appear upon the record or not,' was not meant to abrogate the rule established by prior decisions that the record may not be contradicted collaterally, at least where, as here, jurisdiction of the cause or parties is not involved, and this is demonstrated by the case cited in support of the statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Sullivan
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.