Norton v. Zerbst’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.2d 677 · 1936
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 1958
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Chrysler v. Zerbst · Belt v. Zerbst
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems necessary again to say that in habeas corpus proceedings we are concerned only with whether petitioner was convicted in a court having jurisdiction over the offense and the defendant, and whether the sentence imposed was authorized by the statute. Belt v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 18 , and cases therein cited. The petition and briefs set out what purports to be a copy of the contract establishing this particular substation; it is alleged that there was no mail receptacle in this substation and none closer than a box on the corner; that petitioner did not rob the station of anything except money and blank forms, and inferentially denies he had any intention to steal mail matter when he assaulted the clerk. Petitioner’s entire argument is bottomed upon the assumption that the evidence at the trial disclosed that the clerk was not in charge of ‘mail matter’; that petitioner did not rob him of ‘mail matter’ and did not intend so to do. We know nothing of the evidence at the trial, and it would make no difference if we did, for the sufficiency of the proof to sustain the charge cannot be tested on habeas corpus.””
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.