McDonald v. Padilla’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 1981 · most notably Torres v. Village of Capitan (1978), Bounds v. Carner (1949)
2 federal appellate · 52 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 Blair v. Commissioner · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · United States v. Moser · New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank · United States v. Stone & Downer Co.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * every presumption not inconsistent with the record, is to be indulged in favor of the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction whose judgments are collaterally attacked; and their judgments, though void for want of jurisdiction and would be so held on direct attack, cannot be ques-. tioned on that ground when attacked collaterally, unless the lack of jurisdiction appears affirmatively in the judgment roll.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arthur v. Garcia · Bounds v. Carner““The rule is that as against a collateral attack, a judgment is valid unless the contrary appears in the judgment rol), and the omission of every step in the proceedings except the entry of the judgment, does not overcome the conclusive presumption of regularity of a judgment when collaterally attacked, if the record does not affirmatively disclose the omissions. * * * ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The universal rule adhered to by the courts is that the judgment or final order of a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, however erroneous, irregular, or informal such judgment or order may be, is valid until reversed or set aside. Black on Judgments, § 190. And the general rule is that an error of law does not furnish ground for collateral attack on a judgment. 15 R.C.L. 861. [Emphasis added.]”
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.