Hollandsworth v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
34 F.2d 423 · 1929
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1983 · most notably Burns v. United States (1932), Anderson v. Alexander (1951)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 United States · United States v. Mayer · United States v. Murray · United States v. Mayer · People Ex Rel. Forsyth v. . Court of Sessions
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The third point of the defendant raises an important and interesting question as to the extent of the power which resides in the District Court to cause a defendant, who has been released upon probation, to be brought in and sentenced. We think it is a necessary implication from the terms of the statute that this power may not be exercised arbitrarily and without reference to the behavior of the defendant during the period of probation. * * * “ * * * In view of these several provisions of the act, it seems to be clear that, if the probationer complies with the condition of his probation, he is entitled to remain on probation, subject to the supervision of the court and its officers, until the maximum period of sentence expires, and is then entitled to a final discharge. The power of the court to revoke a probation and sentence the probationer may not be exercised unless it is made to appear that he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions prescribed for him. It is not conceivable that Congress intended to confer upon the court the power to call back the defendant at any time within five years after conviction and imprison him, no matter how blameless his conduct may have been during the interim, or how strictly he may have observed the terms of his probation. * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no restriction upon the discretion of the district courts as to the period of probation, except the limitation of five years expressly provided by the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tiedeman v. State““The period of probation, together with any extension thereof, shall not exceed five years.””
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.