Fanning v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1991 · most notably Dietz v. Warden (1981), Goodroad v. Solem (1987)
4 federal appellate · 20 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 State Ex Rel. Burns v. Erickson · State v. Roth · State Ex Rel. Ruffing v. Jameson · State Ex Rel. Baker v. Jameson · State v. Paul
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Errors and irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction of the person, subject matter and power to decide questions of law, are not reviewable though they may have been grounds for reversal on direct appeal. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a controversy and to render judgment in accord with law. Excepting those actions in which the court may lose jurisdiction by a denial of due process (see State ex rel. Baker v. Jameson, 72 S.D. 638 , 38 N.W.2d 441 ) this power includes the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly, to render an erroneous judgment as well as a correct one. Yet jurisdiction is not thereby lost. Stated succinctly, the power to decide includes the power to err. Were it held a court had jurisdiction to render only correct decisions, then, each time it made an erroneous ruling or decision, the court would be without jurisdiction and the ruling itself void. Such is not the law. If error occur the remedy is by appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodroad v. Solem““Misconduct of counsel is ground for a new trial, SDCL 23-50; State v. Brown, 81 S.D. 195 , 132 N.W.2d 840 ; State v. Norman, 72 S.D. 168 , 31 N.W.2d 258 ; State v. Bechtold, 48 S.D. 219 , 203 N.W. 511 , and in the event of denial of a new-trial a direct appeal may be taken from the judgment and the denial may be urged as a reason to reverse the judgment. On direct appeals the courts have held such questions not misconduct sufficient to reverse where defendant did not make a motion for appropriate corrective action, such as a motion for a mistrial or request an admonition by the trial court. * * * Claims such questions are prejudicial must be presented to the trial court and they cannot be first raised on appeal ⅜ ⅛ ⅜ It”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. O'CONNOR““It is of no concern now if objections were or were not made to the instructions. Defendant could have done so then and raised the question on a motion for a new trial, SDC 34.40, or by appeal. Failure to do so in either the trial or appellate court is a waiver of the objection. * * * The judgments have become final and res judicata so far as this petitioner is concerned.””
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.