Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 U.S. 393 - Ex Parte Lennon

Ex Parte Lennon’s Empirical Analysis

150 U.S. 393 · 1893

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 1969
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1969 · most notably United States v. Shipp (1906), Ex Parte Lennon (1897)

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

35018931900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States · Ex Parte Tyler · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · Horner v. United States · Cross v. Burke

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

  1. ““The Judiciary Act of March 3, 18_91, in distributing the appellate jurisdiction of the national judicial system between the Supreme Court and th,e Circuit Court of Appeals therein established, designated the classes of cases in respect of which each of these courts was to have final jurisdiction, (the judgments of the latter being subject to the supervisory power of this court through the writ of certiorari as provided,) and the act has uniformly been so construed and applied as to promote its general and manifest purpose of lessening the burden of litigation in this court. í|c íjí íjí “It is argued that the record shows that complainants had been deprived of their property without flue process of law, by means of the decree attacked, but because the bill alleged irregularities, errors and jurisdictional defects in the foreclosure proceedings, and fraud in respect thereof and in the subsequent transactions, which might- have enabled the railroad company upon a direct appeal to have avoided the decree of sale, or which, if sustained on this bill, might have justified the Circuit Court in setting aside-that decree, it does not- follow that- the construction' or application of the Constitution of the United States was involved in the case in the sense of the statute. In passing upon the validity of that decree the Circuit Court decided no question of the construction or'the application of the Constitution, and, as we have said, no such question was raised for its consideration.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Under existing statutory provisions appeals may be taken to this court from final decisions of the Circuit Courts in habeas corpus in cases, among others, where the applicant for the writ is alleged to be restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution or of some law or treaty of the United States, and if the restraint is by any state court, or by or under the authority of any state, further proceedings cannot be had against him pending the appeal. Such being the law, it has happened in numerous instances that applications for the writ have been made, and appeals taken from refusals to grant it, quite destitute of meritorious grounds, and operating only to delay the administration of justice.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““While the right of appeal from the judgments of Circuit Courts on habeas corpus directly to this court, in all cases, is taken away by the act of March 3. 1891, that right still exists in the cases designated in section 5 of that act.’’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.