West v. Cabell’s Empirical Analysis
153 U.S. 78 · 1894
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 18 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), Payton v. New York (1980)
79 federal appellate · 18 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Lammon v. Feusier · Holley v. Mix · Griswold v. Sedgwick · Gurnsey v. Lovell
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By the common law, a warrant for the-arrest of a person charged with crime must truly name him, or describe him sufficiently to identify him. If it does not, the officer making the arrest is liable to an action for false imprisonment; and if, -in attempting to make the arrest, the officer is killed, this is only manslaughter in the person whose liberty is invaded. 1 Hale P. C. 577, 580; 2 Hale P. C.112, 114; Foster’s Crown Law, 312; 1 East P. C. 310; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 39 , 40; Huckle v. Money, 2 Wilson, 205 ; Money v. Leach, 3 Burrow, 1742, 1766, 1767; S. C. 1 W. B1. 555, 561, 562; Rex v. Hood, 1 Moody C. C. 281; Hoye v. Bush, 1 Man. & Gr. 775; S. C. 2 Scott N. R. 86. Likewise, a warrant of arrest in a civil action, which does not name or describe the person to be arrested, is no justification of the officer. Cole v. Hindson, 6 T. R. 234; Shadgett v. Clipson, 8 East, 328; Finch v. Cocken, 2 Cr. M. & R. 196; S. C. 1 Gale, 130, and 3 Dowling, 678; Kelly v. Lawrence, 3 H. & C. 1. “The principle of the common law, by which warrants of arrest, in cases criminal or civil, must specifically name or describe the person to be arrested, has been affirmed in the American constitutions; and by the great weight of authority in this country a warrant that does not do so will not justify the officer making the arrest. Commonwealth v. Crotty, 10 Allen, 403 ; Griswold v. Sedgwick, 6 Cowen, 456, and 1 Wend. 126 ; Mead v. Haws , 7 Cowen, 332; Holley v. Mix, 3 Wen. 350, 354; Scott v. Ely, 4 We”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"... [A]n officer who acts under a void precept, and a person doing the same act who is not an officer, stand on the same footing; and any third person may lawfully interfere to prevent an arrest under a void warrant, doing no more than is necessary for that purpose." [Commonwealth v. Crotty], 10 Allen, 404 , 405 [ 92 Mass. 403 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Holeman
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.