State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 1979 · most notably State v. Thompson (1959), JR Watkins Company v. Hubbard (1961)
5 federal appellate · 20 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 Darr v. Burford · In Re Claim of Dependents of Seabaugh v. Garver Lumber Manufacturing Co. · Hood v. United States · State v. Ninemires · State v. Eaton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In seeking a writ of error coram nobis, the defendant has mistaken his remedy. Such a writ lies for some unknown fact, going to the right of the court to proceed, which entirely defeats the power of the court to attain a valid result in the proceedings. Badger Lumber Co. v. Goodrich, 353 Mo. 769 , 184 S.W.2d 435 , 439(8). Here there is no allegation of an unknown fact going to the court’s jurisdiction. The facts alleged are disclosed on the face of the record; the error, if any, is one of law and the writ will not lie to correct an error of law. State v. Wallace, 209 Mo. 358 , 108 S.W. 542 , 543(1); City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank, 351 Mo. 688 , 173 S.W.2d 837 ,846(11).” 307 S.W.2d at pages 489-490.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * if any convict commits any crime in an institution of the department of corrections, or in any county of this state while under sentence, the court having jurisdiction of criminal offenses in the county shall have jurisdiction of the offense, and the convict may be charged, tried and convicted in like manner as other persons; and in case of conviction, the sentence of the convict shall not commence to run until the expiration of the sentence under which he is held. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stanfield v. Swenson“The fact that the defendant was on parole and not confined to the penitentiary at the time of the commission of the second offense did not prevent the application of section 222.020 because, as held in Herring v. Scott, Mo., 142 S.W.2d 670 , 671 [2]: ‘The fact that he was out on parole when the second offense was committed, did not make him any the less”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Forbes v. Haynes
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.