Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 F.2d 739 - Hale v. Crawford

Hale v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis

65 F.2d 739 · 1933

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 1970
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1970

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3019331940195019601970decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 591 · 18 U.S.C. § 662

Relies on Royall · Strauder v. West Virginia · Ex parte Virginia · Ex parte Siebold · Moses Haas v. William Henkel

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

  1. ““Although the question of the admissibility of evidence now under consideration has not been passed upon by the Supreme Court in a rendition case, we see no reason why the reasoning applied in removal cases involving such question is not applicable in a rendition case involving the same or a like question. In removal cases the chief reason for rejection of the evidence seems to be that the matter to which it relates is one for the trial court to decide in the district to which removal is sought; it being an irregularity in the proceeding pending before that court and not a matter going to the jurisdiction of the court. Indeed it is this line of reasoning that is made use of and applied by the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings brought by a person of African descent held for trial in a state court on an indictment found against him and where a like discrimination was made in the selection of the grand jury finding the indictment.””
    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.