Lyon v. Harkness’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.2d 731 · 1945
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2007
3 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 451
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Royall · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, support for our conclusion is found in the reason for the rule which is that `It is an exceedingly delicate jurisdiction given to the Federal courts by which a person under an indictment in a state court, and subject to its laws, may, by the decision of a single judge of the Federal court, upon a writ of habeas corpus, be taken out of the custody of the officers of the state, and finally discharged therefrom.' Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 , 7, 26 S.Ct. 229, 231, 50 L.Ed. 343, cited with approval in Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179 , 182, 27 S.Ct. 459, 51 L.Ed. 760. It seems to us just as delicate a matter to take one out of the custody of an officer of an asylum state before rendition as to take one out of the custody of an officer of a demanding state after he has been returned there to await trial under an indictment. Federal jurisdiction is just as delicate and interferes just as much with the criminal jurisdiction of the several states in one situation as it does in the other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Ordinarily an application for habeas corpus by one detained under a state court judgment of conviction for crime will be entertained by a federal court only after all state remedies available, including all appellate remedies in the state courts and in this court by appeal or writ of certiorari, have been exhausted.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wade v. Mayo
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.