State Ex Rel. Anglin v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2011
17 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Gault · Fay v. Noia · MacHibroda v. United States
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since only a void judgment may be attacked by the remedy of habeas corpus, the question presented is always one of jurisdiction, that is, whether the order, judgment or process under attack comes within the lawful authority of the court or judge rendering or issuing it. (citations omitted) As held by the Court of Appeals in this case, the writ does not lie to correct mere errors and irregularities committed by a court that is acting within its jurisdiction, that is, errors which fall short of depriving the court of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, supra, [ 211 Tenn. 243 , 364 S.W.2d 887 (1963)]. Only those defects which are recognized as rendering absolutely void the proceedings whereby the petitioner is imprisoned may be reached by habeas corpus. State ex rel. Reed v. Heer, 218 Tenn. 338 , 403 S.W.2d 310 (1966); State ex rel. Newsom v. Henderson, 221 Tenn. 24 , 424 S.W.2d 186 (1968). The writ reaches jurisdictional error only; it is not available to serve the purpose of an appeal or writ of error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... the denial of [the right to counsel] operates to render a judgment against a defendant absolutely void and he may, if imprisoned under such a judgment, obtain his release by habeas corpus. The same is true of a plea of guilty which is not voluntarily and knowingly entered.... A judgment based upon a plea of guilty which was not voluntarily and knowingly entered is void and may be attacked by the remedy of habeas corpus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Archer v. State“It is of the- historical essence of habeas corpus ... to test proceedings so fundamentally lawless that imprisonment ... is void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sneed v. State
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.