Howard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably State Ex Rel. Andrews v. Superior Court (1931), Large v. Superior Court (1986)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 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
Relies on In re Bonner · Kirby v. State · Ex parte Pearson
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When, therefore, the superintendent of the prison receives the commitment, which is his only authority for detaining any man within that prison, he may only do what that commitment orders him, to wit, ‘receive and safely keep’ the defendant for the time specified therein. If, without legal justification, he does more than is necessary to so safely keep him, he is violating the law just as much as he is in releasing him before the expiration of his minimum term of sentence unless he has been legally pardoned. On the other hand, he not only may but must do what is necessary to ‘safely keep’ the prisoner. If, for example, a prisoner attempts to escape from the mild confinement now prescribed by our law, and to our personal knowledge generally enforced by our prison authorities, it is highly proper that such stricter confinement be imposed as may be necessary to hold him. ... ‘ ‘ The superintendent of the state prison is ex oficio an officer of each superior court of the state for the purpose of carrying out'its proper sentences, and is subject to attachment for contempt if he departs therefrom, either on the side of excessive leniency or severity, without legal excuse therefor. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Wright“The superintendent of the state prison is ex officio an officer of each superior court of the state for the purpose of carrying out its proper sentences, and is subject to attachment for contempt if he departs therefrom, either on the side of excessive leniency or severity, without legal excuse therefor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.