Eyman v. Cumbo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 28 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * when a notice of appeal is filed the .trial court is divested of its general jurisdiction to act and may only do so in furtherance of the appeal. Obviously, a petition for habeas corpus is not in furtherance of the appeal if addressed to the same issues. Cf. State v. Peters, 60 Ariz. 102, 106 , 131 P.2d 814 . And though a habeas corpus proceeding is a civil action collaterally attacking the judgment of conviction, Oswald v. Martin, 70 Ariz.' 392, 397,' 222 P.2d 632 , it is nevertheless directed to the same matter which is the subject of the appeal. The rule and its reason were clearly stated in State ex rel. Bressman v. Theisen (not reported in state reports) Mo.App., 142 S.W. 1088 where the court said: Where one court has competent jurisdiction of the person and is proceeding to exercise it, it would be a great outrage upon the administration of justice if a court of equal or inferior jurisdiction should by virtue of the writ of habeas corpus seek to override the jurisdiction of the former by discharging the person and thus annulling its writs and processes and rendering abortive any judgment it might lawfully render. ' 'Should we hold that the action of the circuit 'court in issuing "the writ of 'habeas corpus'was a bar to any other or further proceeding in this case,- it would in effect be to hold that the jurisdiction of this court was at an end, and that an inferior court by such means could oust this court of a jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.’ 142 S.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yanich v. Eyman ex rel. State