Franklin v. Biddle’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.2d 19 · 1925
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1958
17 federal appellate · 1 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 In re Debs · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · United States v. Jin Fuey Moy · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Ex parte Parks
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) The question in this case, however, is not the sufficiency of the indictment against Mr. Franklin against a' direct attack by demurrer or motion in the trial court; it is its sufficiency to invoke the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court in California which tried him to decide, if it had been requested by the defendant in the proper time so to do, whether or not that indictment was sufficient to require him to stand trial thereunder. And the test of jurisdiction is not right decision but the right to enter upon the inquiry and make some decision. * * * ****** “(4, 5) * * * If any error was committed relevant to this fact at • the trial in the court in California, that error cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the office of a writ of error. It is available only to relieve a prisoner from the restraint imposed by a judgment or order that is absolutely void on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to render it. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 600 , 15 S.Ct. 900 , 39 L.Ed. 1092 ; In re Nevitt, 8 Cir., 117 F. 448, 449 , 54 C.C. A. 622.””
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.