Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 ALA 486 - Warwick v. State

Warwick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1883

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
5
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1987

13 state decisions

4018831890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Smith v. United States · Commonwealth v. Andrews · People of the State of N.Y. v. . Genet · People v. Redinger · Parsons v. State

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

  1. “. . There is no rule of law which requires of courts that they should go through the empty and useless form of doing a nugatory thing. It would be a legal mockery to sentence one to be hanged who had fled the State and was beyond the seas. This is not upon the theory that the personal appearance of the accused in the appellate court is necessary to confer jurisdiction — rule of the common law which does not prevail either in this, or, perhaps, in any of the other American States. — Arch.Cr.Pl. & Pr. (Pomeroy), p. 622, note. It rather grows out of the fact that the necessary basis of all criminal proceedings is the condition precedent, that the accused must be in the custody and under the control of the court, either actual or constructive, before such tribunals of justice will undertake to sit in judgment upon questions involving his life or liberty. It is repugnant to every just conception of judicial proceedings, in the decent and orderly administration of justice, that the accused should occupy an attitude enabling him to accept or reject the judgment of a court, according as it may coincide or conflict with the selfish promptings of his own option. Such a practice would be fraught with much of the evil resulting from the iniquitous conception of permitting a criminal to sit as judge in his own case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.