Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 840 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably Schlesinger v. Councilman (1975), Gosa v. Mayden (1973)
93 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 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
reviewedRelford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 860 · 10 U.S.C. § 866 · 10 U.S.C. § 885 · 10 U.S.C. § 920
Relies on Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · O'Callahan v. Parker · Alabama State Federation of Labor Local v. McAdory · United States Ex Rel. Toth v. Quarles
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 840 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The serviceman’s proper absence from the base. 2. The crime’s commission away from the base. 3. Its commission at a place not under military control. 4. Its commission within our territorial limits and not in an occupied zone of a foreign country. 5. Its commission in peacetime and its being unrelated to authority stemming from the war power. 6. The absence of any connection between the defendant’s military duties and the crime. 7. The victim’s not being engaged in the performance of any duty relating to the military. 8. The presence and availability of a civilian court in which the case can be prosecuted. 9. The absence of any flouting of military authority. 10. The absence of any threat to a military post. 11. The absence of any violation of military property. 12. The offense’s being among those traditionally prosecuted in civilian courts.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a serviceman is charged with an offense committed within ... a military post and violative of the security of a person or of the property there, that offense may be tried by court-martial. Expressing it another way: a serviceman’s crime against the person of an individual upon the base or against property on the base is “service connected””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny ad hoc approach leaves outer boundaries undetermined. O’Callahan marks an area, perhaps not the limit, for the concern of the civil courts and where the military may not enter. The case today marks an area, perhaps not the limit, where the court-martial is appropriate and permissible. What lies between is for decision at another time.”
3 later decisions 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.