Cook v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 federal appellate · 26 district · 42 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 253 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . [w]hile the Federal courts have the power and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Federal Constitution or laws, the practice of exercising such power before the question has been raised or determined in the state court is one which ought not to be encouraged.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Whitten · In re Alexander

2. “"1. That this court will not interfere to relieve persons who have been arrested and taken by violence from the territory of one State to that of another, where they are held under process legally issued from the courts of the latter State. "2. That the question of the applicability of this doctrine to a particular case is as much within the province of a State court, as a question of common law or of the law of nations, as it is of the courts of the United States." Cook v. Hart , 146 U.S. at 192 , 13 S.Ct. at 43.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lawrence · Stebens v. Hand

3. ““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