Thomas v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 500 · 1959
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably United States v. McCord (1975), Roberts v. Pegelow (1963)
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United State v. Morgan · United States v. Hayman · Darr v. Burford · Heflin v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The net of the situation is that while Congress, in Section 2255, was affording a new remedy for post conviction attacks on a federal sentence, no congressional purpose can be divined to exclude ancient remedies where the new one does not reach the particular problem.” 271 F.2d at 504 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We should here apply the Morgan case. Cf. Pollard v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 354 , 77 S.Ct. 481 , 1 L.Ed.2d 393 . The relief sought and the grounds therefor are both cognizable within the scope of the common law writ of error coram nobis. It had often been held prior to United States v. Morgan that the writ would lie to review convictions which are allegedly based on coerced pleas of guilty. See 30 A.L.R. 686 and cases collected there. The Morgan case itself specifically noted, as an example of the proper use of the writ, a conviction on a guilty plea obtained through the coercion of fear of mob violence, citing Sanders v. State, 1882, 85 Ind. 318 . 346 U.S. at page 508 , 74 S.Ct. at page 250 . Recently, the Morgan case has been followed by this and other federal courts in cases where the petitioner alleged his plea of guilty was involuntary. Farnsworth v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 59 , 232 F.2d 59 , 62 A.L.R.2d 423 ; Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 101 , reversed on other grounds on rehearing en banc, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 571 , reversed on confession of error by Solicitor General, 1958, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 . "Two things only serve to distinguish the instant case from United States v. Morgan: (1) there petitioner was attacking a sentence already served ; here he is attacking a sentence he has not yet begun to serve; (2) there his papers were labeled as an application for a writ of coram nobis ; here the papers are labeled ”
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.