Fisk’s Empirical Analysis
113 U.S. 713 · 1885
Citation profile
180 federal appellate · 67 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 539 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947)
180 federal appellate · 67 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Ex parte Lange · Ex parte Virginia · Ex parte Siebold · Ex parte Parks
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 539 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• “See. 861. -The mode of proof in the trial of actions at common law, shall -be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court, except as hereinafter provided.” [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When, a court of tbe United States undertakes by its process of contempt to punish a man for refusing to comply with an order which that court had no authority to make, the order itself, being without jurisdiction, is void, and the order punishing for contempt is equally void; and that, when the proceeding for contempt in such a case results in imprisonment, this court will, by its writ of habeas corpus, discharge the prisoner. * * * All the proceedings in the exercise of the jurisdiction which [the court] assumed are null and void. The orders forbidding the petitioners to bring the suits for the bringing of which they were adjudged in contempt of its authority, it had no power to make. The orders adjudging them in contempt were equally void, and their imprisonment is without authority at law.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ayers · In re Reese““This obviously means the production of the witness before the court at the time of trial, and his oral examination then; and it does not mean proof by reading depositions, though those depositions may have been taken before a judge of the court,’ or even in open court, at some other time than during the trial. They would not, in such ease, be oral testimony. The exceptions to this section, which all relate to depositions, also show that proof by deposition cannot he within the rule, but belongs exclusively to the exceptions.””
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.