Wood v. Brush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 federal appellate · 16 district · 48 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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Upon tbe state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them; for the judges of the state courts are required to take an oath to support that constitution, and they are bound by it, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under their authority, as the supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the 'constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.’ If they fail therein, and withhold or deny rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States, the party aggrieved may bring the case from the highest court of the state in which the question could be decided to this court, for final and conclusive determination.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Grice · In re Anderson

2. ““Does the statute imperatively require the circuit court by writ of habeas corpus to "wrest the petitioner from the custody of the state officers in advance of his trial in the state court? We are of the opinion that while the circuit court has power to do so, and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the national constitution, it is not bound in every case to exercise such a power immediately upon application being made for the writ. We cannot suppose that, congress intended to compel these courts by such means to draw to themselves in the first instance the trial of all criminal prosecutions commenced in state courts exercising authority within the same territorial limits, where the accused claims that he is held in custody in violation of the constitution of the United States. The injunction to hear the ease summarily, and therefore to dispose of the case as law and justice require, does not deprive the court of discretion. That discretion should be exercised in the light of the relations existing under our system of government between the judicial tribunals of the Union and of the states, in recognition of the fact that the public good requires that those relations be not disturbed by unnecessary conflict between courts equally bound to guard and protect rights secured by the constitution.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Huse · In re Anderson

3. ““The highest court of the state having thus disposed of the case, and the appellant having failed to obtain from the trial court an order setting aside the conviction and granting a new trial, the present effort was made to secure his release by a writ of habeas corpus issued by the circuit court of the United States. The statute under which the appellant was prosecuted is not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the court that tried him, we repeat, was competent to guard and enforce every right secured to him by that instrument, and which might be involved in his trial. The petition for the writ sets forth no ground affecting its jurisdiction either of the offense charged or of the person alleged to have committed it. If the question of the exclusion of citizens of the African race from the lists of grand and petit jurors had been made during the trial in the court of general sessions, and erroneously decided against the appellant, such error in decision would not have made the judgment of conviction void, or his detention under it illegal. Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267 , 279, 9 Sup. Ct. 699 ; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468 , 478, 10 Sup. Ct. 911 . Nor would that error, of itself, have authorized the circuit court of the United States, upon writ of habeas corpus, to review the decision, or disturb the custody of the accused by the state authorities. The remedy, in such case, for the accused, was to sue out a writ of error from this court to the highes”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lawrence