Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 F.2d 475 - Hash v. Henderson

Hash v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

385 F.2d 475 · 1967

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
4
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably United States v. Huss (1975), Arnold R. Jago, Superintendent v. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division at Cleveland, and Harllel B. Jones (1978)

49 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

47019671970198019902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1702 · 18 U.S.C. § 4082

Relies on International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Zerbst v. Kidwell · Cook v. United States · McIntosh v. United States

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The board is not obligated to instruct the United States Marshal to serve the warrant at the time of issuance, * * * nor is it unreasonable for it to delay taking custody of a prisoner until after he is released from a state penitentiary.” (Emphasis ours.) Id. at 477 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The fact that the Attorney General chose initially to accept the court’s recommendation did not commit him to allow the prisoner, whatsoever the circumstances, to serve the full sentence concurrently, (cites omitted.) Nor can it be inferred that he consented to the unexpired portion of the federal sentence being served concurrently with the state sentence by his failure to revoke his original designation. He was not obliged to designate where the prisoner should be confined for the balance of his federal sentence until . a redesignation became necessary. (cite omitted, emphasis ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “1) a revocation of Hash’s federal parole and 2) a redesignation of the Arkansas state penitentiary as the prison in which the remainder of the original sentence could be served.”
    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.