Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 460 · 1936
Citation profile
245 federal appellate · 21 district · 135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 573 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Williams v. Illinois (1970), Pollard v. United States (1957)
245 federal appellate · 21 district · 135 state decisions — followed in 22 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McNally v. Hill · American Surety Co. v. Baldwin · Ex parte Jackson · Wilson
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 573 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the entry is inaccurate, there is a remedy by motion to correct it to the end that it may speak the truth. People ex rel. Trainor v. Baker, 89 N.Y. 460, 466. But the judgment imports verity when collaterally assailed. Ibid. Until corrected in a direct proceeding, it says what it was meant to say, and this by an irrebuttable presumption. In any collateral inquiry, a court will close its ears to a suggestion that [the record is inaccurate]”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The payment of a fine imposed by a court of the United States in a criminal prosecution may be enforced by execution against property in like manner as in civil cases * *. In the discretion of the court the judgment may direct also that the defendant shall be imprisoned until the fine is paid * * *. If the direction for imprisonment is omitted, the remedy by execution is exclusive. Imprisonment does not follow automatically upon a showing of default in payment. It follows, if at all, because the consequence has been prescribed in the imposition of the sentence. The choice of pains and penalties, when choice is committed to the discretion of the court, is part of the judicial function. This being so, it must have expression in the sentence, and the sentence is the judgment.” Id. at pages 463-464, 56 S.Ct. at page 762.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A warrant of commitment departing in matter of substance from the judgment back of it is void. Being void and not merely irregular, its nullity may be established upon a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner is detained, not by virtue of the warrant of commitment, but on account of the judgment and sentence. If the judgment and sentence do not authorize his detention, no “mitti-mus” will avail to make detention lawful.”
4 later decisions 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.