In re Swan’s Empirical Analysis
150 U.S. 637 · 1893
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947)
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Ex parte Lange · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Barbier v. Connolly · Crowley v. Christensen
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is further contended that the court exceeded its power, in that the payment of costs was required, because the costs were in the nature of a fine, and therefore the punishment inflicted was both fine and imprisonment. "Under section 970 of the Revised Statutes, when judgment is rendered ágainst a defendant in a prosecution for any fine or forfeiture he shall be subject to the payment of costs, and on- every conviction for any other offense, not capital, the court may, in its discretion, award that the defendant shall pay the costs of the prosecution; and, as contempt of court is a specific criminal offense, it is said that the judgment for payment of costs would appear to be within the power of the court, although by section 725 it is provided that ■contempts of the authority of courts of the United States may be punished ‘tóy fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.’ But, be that as it may, the sentence here was that the petitioner be imprisoned ‘until he re turns to the custody oí the receiver the barrel taken by him from the warehouse -without warrant of law, and, when that has been surrendered, that he suffer a further imprisonment thereafter in said county jail for three months, and until he pay the costs of these proceedings.’ As the prisoner has neither restored the goods, nor suffered the imprisonment for three months, even If it was not within the power of the court to require payment of costs, and its judgment, to that extent, exceeded its authority”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We reiterate what has been so often said before, — that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to perform the office of a writ of error or appeal, but when no writ of error or appeal will lie, or if a petitioner is imprisoned under a judgment of the circuit court which has no jurisdiction of the prisoner or of the subject-matter, or authority to render the judgment complained of, this relief may be accorded him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Anderson
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.