Charles Earl Jacobson v. Nick F. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
441 F.2d 127 · 1971
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2003 · most notably Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (1980), Slavin v. Curry (1978)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Pierson v. Ray · Bradley v. Fisher · Pargoud v. United States · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 202 F. Supp. 624 - Rhodes v. Houston
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We have found nothing in the Wisconsin Statutes which expressly grants to judges in criminal cases the authority to attach conditions to bail that do not directly relate to assuring the criminal defendant's appearance at trial. However, we think that, in terms of a judge's `general jurisdiction over the subject matter', the defendant judge here probably had minimal jurisdiction to attach at least some conditions to bail. See: Wis. Stat. Sec. 253.12 (County Court Criminal trial jurisdiction), Sec. 954.16, 954.30, Whitty v. State, 34 Wis.2d 278 , 149 N.W.2d 557 (1967). Moreover, the defendant judge did have jurisdiction to control substitution of attorneys in his court. Wis. Stat.Sec. 256.27(3). Obviously, the use of his jurisdiction to coerce the reimbursement of allegedly owed legal fees was a clear abuse of power, especially when other channels existed for recovery of any such fees which might have been owed. Wis. Stat. Sec. 957.263 Recovery of legal fees paid for indigent defendants. But the fact that an abuse occurred did not destroy the defendant judge's original jurisdiction as that term has been defined in the judicial immunity cases."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We point out again that we are applying the judicial immunity doctrine only to damage suits against judges. The doctrine does not reach suits for purely equitable relief.” ( 441 F.2d at 130 , emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boyd v. Adams
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.