Humphrey v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 695 · 1949
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 7 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2008 · most notably United States v. Augenblick (1969), Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950)
76 federal appellate · 7 district · 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSmith v. Hiatt (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1564
Relies on Carter v. McClaughry · Yamashita Yamashita v. Styer US · Collins v. McDonald · United States Hirshberg v. Cooke
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold that a failure to conduct pre-trial investigations as required by Article 70 does not deprive a general courts-martial [sic] of jurisdiction so as to empower courts in habeas corpus proceedings to invalidate court-martial judgments. It is contended that this interpretation of Article 70 renders it meaningless, practically making it a dead letter. This contention must rest on the premise that the Army will comply with the 70th Article of War only if courts in habeas corpus proceedings can invalidate any court-martial conviction which does not follow an Article 70 pre-trial procedure. We cannot assume that judicial coercion is essential to compel the Army to obey this Article of War.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Effect of error. — The proceedings of a court-martial will not be held invalid nor the findings or sentence disapproved in any case on the ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure unless, after an examination of the entire proceedings, it shall affirmatively appear that the error has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the accused (A.W. 37). Error is not presumed to affect injuriously the substantial rights of an accused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. White v. Humphrey““We may at once dispose of the contention that the respondent should not have been convicted on the evidence offered. That evidence was in sharp dispute. But our authority in habeas corpus proceedings to review court-martial judgments does not permit us to pass on the guilt or innocence of persons convicted by courts-martial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Prentiss v. Taylor
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.