Ex Parte Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 25 district · 21 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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If we assume that the record shows the locality of the alleged offense and seizure as stated, it also shows that the officers of the United States, acting under the orders of their government, seized this vessel, engaged in catching seal, and tools her into the nearest port, and that the law officers of the government libeled her, and proceeded against her for the violation of the laws of the United States, in the district court, resulting in her condemnation. How did it happen that the officers received such orders? It must be admitted that they were given in the assertion on the part of this government of territorial jurisdiction over Behring sea to an extent exceeding fifty-nine miles from the shores of Alaska.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Kodiak · United States v. The Kodiak

2. ““No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur seal, or other fur-bearing animal, within the limits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof, and every person guilty thereof shall, for each offense, be fined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this section, shall be forfeited. But the secretary of the treasury shall have power to authorize the killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur seal, under such regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the secretary to prevent the killing of any fur seal, and to provide for the execution of the provisions of this section, until it is otherwise provided by law. Nor shall he grant any special privileges under this section.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. The Kodiak

3. ““Whether the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary or demandable of right has been much debated. , “As remarked by Mr. Justice Gray in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173 , 6 Sup. Ct. 570, 573, it may be said to be discretionary, ‘where there is another legal remedy, by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court whose action is sought to be prohibited is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where ft stranger, as he may in England, applies for the writ of prohibition. But where that court has clearly no jurisdiction of the suit or prosecution instituted before it, and the defendant therein has objected to its jurisdiction at the outset, and has no other remedy, he is entitled to a writ of prohibition as a matter of right; and a refusal to grant it, where all the proceedings appear of record, may be reviewed on error.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. Grubel