Goto v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
265 U.S. 393 · 1924
Citation profile
224 federal appellate · 15 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 342 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Fay v. Noia (1963), Brown v. Allen (1953)
224 federal appellate · 15 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Ex parte Lange · Bain Jr · Royall · Frank v. Mangum
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 342 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * is an extraordinary one, out of the usual course, and involves, a collateral attack on the process or judgment constituting the basis of the detention. The instances in which it is granted, when the law • has provided another remedy in regular course, are exceptional 'and • usually confined to situations where there is peculiar and pressing need for it or where the process or judgment under which the prisoner is held is wholly void. This case does not measure up to that test.” Goto v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 401 , 44 S.Ct. 525, 527 , 68 L.Ed. 1070 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person committed, detained, confined, or restrained from his lawful liberty within the District, under any color or pretense whatever, or any person in his or her behalf, may apply by petition to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, or any justice thereof, for a writ of habeas corpus, to the end that the cause of such commitment, detainer, confinement, or restraint may be inquired into; and the court or the justice applied to, if the facts set forth in the petition make a prima facie case, shall forthwith grant such writ, directed to the officer or other person in whose custody or keeping the party so detained shall be, returnable forthwith before said court or justice”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dorsey v. Gill
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.