Anderson v. Corall’s Empirical Analysis
263 U.S. 193 · 1923
Citation profile
347 federal appellate · 27 district · 135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 669 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Jones v. Cunningham (1963), Carlson v. Landon (1952)
347 federal appellate · 27 district · 135 state decisions — followed in 26 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAnderson v. Williams (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Drinkall v. Spiegel · Dolan's Case · Petition of Moebus · Anderson v. Williams
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 669 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile [parole] is an amelioration of punishment, it is in legal effect imprisonment.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]ere lapse of time without imprisonment or other restraint contemplated by the law does not constitute service of sentence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Corall’s violation of the parole, evidenced by the warden’s warrant and his conviction, sentence to and confinement in the Joliet penitentiary, interrupted his service under the sentence here in question, and was in legal effect on the same plane as an escape from the custody and control of the warden. His status and rights were analogous to those of an escaped convict. Drinkall v. Spiegel, Sheriff, 68 Conn. 441 , 449, 450, 36 A. 830 , 36 A.L.R. 486 . The term of his sentence had not expired in October, 1916, when, at Chicago, he was convicted of another crime and sentenced to the Joliet penitentiary. Then — if not earlier — he ceased to be in the legal custody and under the control of the warden of the Leavenworth penitentiary, as required by § 3 of the act and the terms of the parole authorized thereby. His claim that his term expired in 1917 before he was retaken and while he was serving sentence at Joliet cannot be sustained, and we hold that it had not expired in January, 1920, at the time of the action of the board.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jenkins v. Madigan · Story v. Rives
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.