Coy’s Empirical Analysis
127 U.S. 731 · 1888
Citation profile
160 federal appellate · 51 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 409 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), United States v. Classic (1941)
160 federal appellate · 51 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 21 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 · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · United States v. Wiltberger · Ex parte Siebold · Fisk
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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The circuit court for the district of Columbia is a court of record, having general jurisdiction over criminal cases. An offence cognizable in any court, is cognizable in that court. If the offence be punishable by law, that court is competent to inflict the punishment. The judgment of such a tribunal has all the obligation which the judgment of any tribunal can have. To determine whether the offence charged in the indictment be legally punishable or not, is among the most unquestionable of its powers and duties. The decision of this question is the exercise of jurisdiction, whether the judgment be for or against the prisoner. The judgment is equally binding in the one case and in the other; and must remain in full force, unless reversed regularly by a superior court, capable of reversing it. * * * “Had any offence against the laws of the United States been, in fact, committed, the circuit court for the district of Columbia could take cognizance of it. The question whether any offence was, or was not, committed, that is, whether the indictment did, or did not, show that an offence had been committed, was a question which that court was competent to decide. If its judgment was erroneous, a point which this court does not determine, still it is a judgment, and, until reversed, cannot be disregarded. * * * “Without looking into the indictments under which the prosecution against the petitioner was conducted, we are unanimously of opinion, that the judgment of a court of general”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“when the question of jurisdiction is raised [on habeas corpus], the point to be decided is, whether the court has jurisdiction of that class of offenses”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * to interfere with the officers of the election in the discharge of their duties; that they did by unlawful means induce them to violate and refuse to comply with their duty in regard to the custody and safe-keeping of the election returns, and that they persuaded and induced these officers, or attempted so to do, to omit their duty in regard thereto.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.