Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 F.1d 530 - In re Ellerbe

In re Ellerbe’s Empirical Analysis

13 F. 530 · 1882

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
September 1941
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1941

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

401882189019001910192019301940decided

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 Kearney · Ex parte Rowland · New Orleans v. The Steamship Company · Banking Ass'n v. Insurance Ass'n · In re Cary

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

  1. “■“It is next'insisted on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to a hearing before he can be sent out of the district, and that he has not had such a hearing as the law requires. It was, no doubt, the duty of the marshal of the Haétem district of Arkansas to appiy to the judge of his district for an order Cor the arrest of the petitioner; and it was the duty of the district judge to enter into such investigaiion as was necessary (o enable him to determine whether the petitioner should be sent out of the district to answer the charge against him. Precisely how far the district judge was authorized to go upon such a hearing it is not necessary in the present case to determine. Certain it is that ho had the right to inquire into the question of the prisoner’s identity. This would be necessary in any case, for the judgment; of the court in another district, however conclusive upon other questions, would establish nothing with regard to the identity of the prisoner.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A refusal to obey the process of a court of the United States * * * Is plainly an offense against the federal government. A proceeding in contempt, in a federal court, is a criminal case, to be prosecuted in the name of the United States.””
    1 later decision 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.