Barry v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.2d 222 · 1938
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 1991 · most notably Dorsey v. Gill (1945), Dorsey v. Gill (1945)
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 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
Applies 24 U.S.C. § 1 · 24 U.S.C. § 191 · 24 U.S.C. § 193 · 24 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on Salinger v. Loisel · Fleischmann Const Co v. United States · Wong Doo v. United States · Simon v. Craft · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellant’s confinement in Saint Elizabeths under the Treasury Department letter until the time of the order of remand on the writ of habeas corpus of January 26, 1937, was illegal. Insanity is not a crime and therefore the constitutional guaranty of jury trial is not applicable; nevertheless, confinement in a mental hospital is as full and effective a' deprivation of personal liberty as is confinement in jail. The Fifth Amendment is applicable in the District of Columbia, Sims v. Rives, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 24, 31 , 84 F.2d 871, 878 , and cases cited; and it guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding —the proceeding may be adapted to the nature of the case — but it does necessitate an opportunity for a hearing and a defense. Ballard v. Hunter, 1907, 204 U.S. 241, 255 , 27 S.Ct. 261 , 51 L.Ed. 461 ; Simon v. Craft, 1901, 182 U.S. 427, 437 , 21 S.Ct. 836 , 45 L.Ed. 1165 ; In re Bryant, 1885, 3 lackey 489, 14 D.C. 489 ; See Logue v. Fenning, 1907, 29 App.D.C. 519, 525 ; cf. Matter of Lambert, 1901, 134 Cal. 626 , 66 P. 851 , 55 L.R.A. 856 , 86 Am.St.Rep. 296 ; In re Wellman, 1896, 3 Kan.App. 100 , 45 P. 726 ; State v. Billings, 1894, 55 Minn. 467 , 57 N.W. 206, 794 , 43 Am.St.Rep. 525 ; Allgor v. New Jersey State Hospital, 1912, 80 N. J.Eq. 386, 84 A. 711 ; In re Allen, 1909, 82 Vt. 365 , 73 A. 1078 , 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 232. In Re Wellman, supra, a person alleged to be insa”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Romero“"The appellee also urges such cases as Hammon v. Hill, D.C., W.D.Pa., 1915, 228 F. 999 ; County of Black Hawk v. Springer, 1882, 58 Iowa 417 , 10 N.W. 791 ; In re Dowdell, Petitioner, 1897, 169 Mass. 387 , 47 N.E. 1033 , 61 Am.St.Rep. 290 ; Ex parte Dagley, 1912, 35 Okl. 180 , 128 P. 699 , 44 L.R.A., N.S., 389; In re Petition of Simon G. Crosswell, 1907, 28 R.I. 137 , 66 A. 55 , 13 Ann.Cas. 874. The statutes involved in these cases were lunacy statutes. They did not require notice and opportunity to be heard in advance of commitment and confinement, but did afford a hearing later at the instance of the subject, in the Dowdell Case by special statutory proceeding, and in the other cases by the writ of habeas corpus. The provisions for ultimate hearing were held to save the statutes. We think the cases are wrongly decided." We do not agree with last sentence quoted from Barry .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Phillips v. Giles““ * * * Even though it appears factually upon a habeas corpus hearing that a petitioner is insane, nevertheless, if he has been confined under a void statute or a void proceeding, he is entitled to an order of discharge so far as his then confinement 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.