Collins v. Traeger’s Empirical Analysis
27 F.2d 842 · 1928
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2004 · most notably Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990), Dorsey v. Gill (1945)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 454 · 28 U.S.C. § 460
Relies on Roberts v. Reilly · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police · Munsey v. Clough · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(an) application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Now, as these devices are as various as the mind of man is suggestive, it would be impossible for the legislature to define them, and equally so, to specify them in an indictment; therefore the legislature has declared, that an indictment for this offense shall be sufficient if the allegation is contained in it that the accused did, at a certain time and place, unlawfully and feloniously obtain or attempt to obtain the money or property of another by means and by use of the confidence game, leaving to be made out by the proof the nature and kind of the device to which resort was had. ****** “The nature and character of the so-called confidence game, has become popularized in most of the cities and large towns, and even.in the rural districts, of this broad Union, and is well understood, and this defendant was distinctly apprised by the indictrfient of what he was called upon to defend. The accusation is sufficiently identified by the name of the victim. This name must appear in every indictment on this statute, and appearing there, no second indictment for the same offence could be successfully prosecuted. The conviction on this indictment could always be pleaded in bar of a second. “We are of opinion that the offence is so set forth in the indictment that the accused can be at no loss to know what it is with which he is charged, and can so prepare his defense; that he cannot be charged with one of-fence and arraigned for another and different offence, and that he cannot be ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lazar v. State“). 20 The practice of allowing next-friend standing also had been long recognized in our Circuit before it was enacted into the habeas statute. In 1928, we considered an application for a writ of habeas corpus that was not signed by the person in custody, but was "made on behalf and at the request of [the prisoner].”
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.