Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 F.2d 182 - Story v. Rives

Story v. Rives’s Empirical Analysis

97 F.2d 182 · 1938

Citation profile

165
cited by 165 later decisions
6
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

97 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Hyser v. Reed (1963), King v. United States (1938)

97 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions

510193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 704 · 18 U.S.C. § 710 · 18 U.S.C. § 716

Relies on McNally v. Hill · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · O'Donoghue v. United States · Anderson v. Corall · Metropolitan Co v. District of Columbia

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

  1. “A warrant issued for the retaking of a [parolee] * * * proceeds upon an entirely different premise and serves a different purpose than in the case of a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with the commission of a crime. A released prisoner is not a free man. * * * Consequently, it cannot be said that the retaking of a prisoner who is already within the legal custody of the authorities constitutes an arrest within the meaning of the constitutional provisions.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Examination and transfer to hospital A board of examiners for each Federal penal and correctional institution shall consist of (1) a medical officer appointed by the warden or superintendent of the institution; (2) a medical officer appointed by the Attorney General; and (3) a competent expert in mental diseases appointed by the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service. Such board shall examine any inmate of the institution alleged to be insane or of unsound mind or otherwise defective and report their findings and the facts on which they are based to the Attorney General. The Attorney General, upon receiving such report, may direct the warden or superintendent or other official having custody of the prisoner to cause such prisoner to be removed to the United States hospital for defective delinquents or to any other institution authorized by law to receive insane persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, there to be kept until, in the judgment of the superintendent of said hospital, the prisoner shall be restored to sanity or health or until the maximum sentence, without deduction for good time or commutation of sentence, shall have been served.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Persons convicted of an offense against the United States shall be committed, for such terms of imprisonment as the court may direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative, who shall designate the places of confinement where the sentences shall be served. "The Attorney General may designate any available, suitable, and appropriate institutions, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise, or whether within or without the judicial district in which the person was convicted. "The Attorney General may order any inmate transferred from one institution to another. * * *”
    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.