31 Ala. App. 191 - MacKreth v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2000 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District (2000)
1 federal appellate · 25 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 Ex parte Bizzell · Bray v. State · Downs v. City of Birmingham · 29 Ala. App. 398 - Sims v. State · Sims v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If true, these questions are not amenable to post conviction review by way of habeas corpus. Code 1940, T. 15, §§ 27 and 28. From Bricken, P. J., in Mackreth v. Wilson, 31 Ala.App. 191 , 15 So.2d 112, 113 , we quote: “ ‘It being conceded that the prisoner was incarcerated in the penitentiary under sentence imposed by the Clark County Circuit Court, and it further appearing that the record in his case is in all respects regular, the only matter that could be inquired into on habeas corpus in the court below was the jurisdiction of the Clark Circuit Court to render the judgment and impose the sentence that was imposed. Mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings in the Clark County Circuit Court are not available. If they existed they cannot be inquired into collaterally. * * * > »”
2 later decisions 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.