Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 F.2d 653 - Lunsford v. Hudspeth

Lunsford v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis

126 F.2d 653 · 1942

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
6
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Strand v. Schmittroth (1957), United States v. Scallion (1977)

51 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

28019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ponzi v. Fessenden · Burrus · Covell v. Heyman · In re Neagle · Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout

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

  1. ““As an easy and flexible means of administering justice and of affording each sovereignty the right and opportunity to exhaust its remedy for wrongs committed against it, there has evolved the now well established rule of comity which is reciprocal, whereby one sovereignty having exclusive jurisdiction of a person may temporarily waive its right to the exclusive jurisdiction of such person for purposes of trial in the courts of another sovereignty. Thus the offender is accorded a speedy trial and the administration of justice is expedited by the availability of evidence, which might through lapse of time be lost, but such a waiver is a matter addressed solely to the discretion of the sovereignty, or its representatives having power to grant it. Ponzi v. Fes-senden [ 258 U.S. 254 , 42 S.Ct. 309 , 66 L.Ed. 607 ], supra, and Ex parte Aubert, D.C., 51 F.2d 136 . The privileges granted by this flexible rule of comity should and must be respected by the sovereignty to which it is made available, and this respectful duty is reciprocal, whether federal or state, because neither sovereignty has the power to override it. Under the free exercise of this rule, no right or immunity granted by the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, is invaded or impaired.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “have the power in his own right, or acting in obedience to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to acquire exclusive jurisdiction and control of the prisoner.”
    1 later decision 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.