Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 NW2D 141 - Goodroad v. Solem

Goodroad v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Lodermeier v. Class (1996), Cowell v. Leapley (1990)

2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

1901987199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Nachtigall v. Erickson · State Ex Rel. Burns v. Erickson · Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P. A. · First National Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, Inc.

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

  1. “Habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court had jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases, whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`Habeas corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal' [citations omitted]. Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to correct irregular procedures, rather, in the context of post-conviction attacks on the conviction itself, habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional error.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Errors and irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction of the person, subject matter and power to decide questions of law, are not reviewable though they may have been grounds for reversal on direct appeal. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a controversy and to render judgment in accord with law. Excepting those actions in which the court may lose jurisdiction by a denial of due process, [citation omitted] this power includes the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly, to render an erroneous judgment as well as a correct one.... If error occur the remedy is by appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.