United States v. Jung Ah Lung’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We see nothing in these acts which in any manner affects the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to issue a writ of habeas corpus.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Palmore v. Superior Court · Magana-Pizano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

2. ““A Chinese laborer, who resided in the United States on November 17, 1880, continued to reside there till October 24, 1883, when he left San Francisco for China, taking with him a certificate of identification issued to him by the collector of that port, in the form required by the fourth section of the act of May 6, 1882, c. 126, 22 Stat. 58 , which was stolen from him in China, and remained outstanding and uncanceled. Returning from China to San Francisco by a vessel, he was not allowed by the collector to land, for want of the certificate' and was detained in custody in the port, by the master of the vessel, by direction of the customs authorities. On a writ of habeas corpus issued by the District Court of the United States, it appeared that he corresponded in all respects with the description, contained in the registration books of the customhouse, of the person to whom the certificate 'was issued. He was discharged from custody, and the order of discharge, was affirmed by the Circuit Court. “On appeal to this court by the United States, held: “(1) He was in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, and the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the writ. “(2) The jurisdiction of the court was not affected by the fact that the collector had passed on the question of allowing the person to land, or by the fact that the treaty provides for diplomatic action in a case of hardship. “(3) The case of the petitioner was not to be adjudicated under the pr”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Ju Toy · In re Sing Tuck

3. ““But it is obvious, that it is only when the decision of the customs officer excludes an alien from admission that his decision is final. When his decision admits the alien, then the provisions of the act of July 5, 1884, are still applicable, which provide that, notwithstanding the contents of the certificate exhibited to the collector of customs, and their prima facie effect, ‘said certificate may be controverted and .the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities.’ Accordingly, we agree with the courts below in holding that the judgment of the collector of customs at Malone did not conclude the commissioner, and that the latter had authority, under the statutes, to hear and determine the question whether Li Sing was entitled to remain within the limits of the United States.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Li Sing · Ex parte Chin Own