Clawson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
113 U.S. 143 · 1885
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1991
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Ex parte Hoge · Ex parte Smallman · Ex Parte Marks · People v. Folmsbee
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * as the accused sued out an original writ of habeas corpus from the supreme court of the territory, we cannot, upon the present appeal,, consider whether the court of original jurisdiction properly interpreted the local statutes in holding that the accused ‘ought not to be admitted to bail, after conviction and sentence, unless some extraordinary reason therefor is shown.’ There is nothing before us for review, except the order of the supreme court of the territory, which discloses nothing more than the denial of the application to it for bail, and the remanding of the prisoner to the custody of the marshal. "As the judgment did not impose upon the appellant a fine only, his admission to bail, pending the appeal from that judgment, was not a matter of right, but was distinctly committed, by the statute, to the discretion of the court or judge to whom the application for bail may be made. “Whether the supreme court of the territory abused its discretion in the present case is a question not presented by the record before us; for it does not contain any finding of facts, nor the evidence (if there was any apart from the. record of the trial and of the proceedings upon the first application for bail) upon which the court below acted. Its judgment denying bail cannot, therefore, be reversed, unless, as contended by appellant, the certificate of probable cause necessarily carried with it the right to bail, and deprived the court of all discretion in the premises. But that c”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.