Hiatt v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 103 · 1950
Citation profile
147 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 243 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2012 · most notably Burns v. Wilson (1953), Schlesinger v. Councilman (1975)
147 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 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
reviewedHiatt v. Hiatt (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1479 · 10 U.S.C. § 1564 · 28 U.S.C. § 1254
Relies on In re Grimley · Yamashita Yamashita v. Styer US · Martin v. Mott · Kahn v. Anderson
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 243 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * It is well settled that `by habeas corpus the civil courts exercise no supervisory or correcting power over the proceedings of a court-martial * * *. The single inquiry, the test, is jurisdiction.' In re Grimley, 1890, 137 U.S. 147 , 150, 11 S.Ct. 54, 34 L.Ed. 636. In this case the court-martial had jurisdiction of the person accused and the offense charged, and acted within its lawful powers. The correction of any errors it may have committed is for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review its decision. In re Yamashita, 1946, 327 U.S. 1 , 8-9, 66 S.Ct. 340, 344, 345, 90 L.Ed. 499; Swaim v. United States, supra, 165 U.S. [553] at page 562, 17 S.Ct. [448] at page 451, 41 L.Ed. 823.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) Accused was convicted on the theory that although he was on duty as a sentry at the time of the offense, it was incumbent upon him to retreat from his post of duty. “(2) Accused has been convicted of murder on evidence that does not measure to malice, premeditation, or deliberation. “(3) The record reveals that the law member appointed was grossly incompetent. “(4) There was no pre-trial investigation whatever upon the charge of murder. “(5) The record shows that counsel appointed to defend the accused was incompetent, gave no preparation to the case, and submitted only a token defense. “(6) The appellate reviews by the Army reviewing authorities reveal a total misconception of the applicable law.” 175 F.2d at 277 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would have given rise to a defect in the jurisdiction of the court-martial.”
1 later decision 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.