Robb v. Connolly’s Empirical Analysis
111 U.S. 624 · 1884
Citation profile
126 federal appellate · 64 district · 140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 593 later decisions (94 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)
126 federal appellate · 64 district · 140 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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 Ableman v. Booth · Tarble's Case · People Ex Rel. Jourdan v. Donohue · In re Robb
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 593 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . .,”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As the judicial power of the nation extends to all eases arising under the constitution, the laws and treaties of the United States; as the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; and as congress has power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers vested by the constitution in the government of tlie United States, or in any department or officer thereof; no doubt can exist as to the power of congress thus to enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, and of their justices and judges. That the petitioner is held under the authority of a state cannot affect the question of the power or jurisdiction of the circuit court, to inquire into the cause of his commitment, and to discharge him if he be restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution. The grand jurors who found the indictment, the court into which it was returned and by whose order he was arrested, and the officer who holds him in custody, are all equally with individual citizens, under a duty, from the discharge of which the state could not release them, to respect and obey the supreme law of the land; «anything in the constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,’ and that equal power does not belong to the courts and judges of the several states; that they cannot under any authority conferred by the states, discharge from custody persons held by ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Neagle““1. A person charged with crime against tho laws of a state and who flees from justice, that is, after committing the crime, leaves the state, in whatever way or for whatever reason, and is found in another state, may, under the authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States, be brought back to the state in which he stands charged with the crime, to he there dealt with according to law. “2. When the executive authority of the state whose laws have been thus violated makes such a demand upon the executive of the state in which the alleged fugitive is found as is indicated by the above section (5278) of the Revised Statutes, producing at the time of such demand a copy of the indictment, or an affidavit certified as authentic and made before a magistrate charging the person demanded with a crime against the laws of the demanding state', it becomes, under the Constitution and laws of the United0 States, the duty of the executive of the state where the fugitive is found to cause him to be arrested, surrendered, and delivered to the appointed agent of the demanding state, to be taken to that state. “3. Nevertheless, the executive, upon whom such demand is made, not being authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to 'cause the arrest of one charged with crime in another state, unless he is a fugitive from justice, may decline to issue an extradition warrant, unless it is made to appear to him, by competent proof, that the accused is substantially char”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Graham
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.