New York v. Eno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 30 district · 2 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That these salutary principles may have full operation, and in harmony with what we suppose was the intention of Congress in the enactments in question, this court holds that where a person is in custody, under process from a state court of original jurisdiction, for an alleged offense against the laws of such state, and it is claimed that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the circuit court has a discretion whether it will discharge him upon habeas corpus in advance of his trial in the court in which he is indicted; that discretion, however, to be subordinated to any special circumstances requiring immediate action. When the state court shall have finally acted upon the case, the circuit court has still a discretion whether, under all the circumstances then existing, the accused, if convicts, shall be put to his writ of error from the highest court ■of the state, or whether it will proceed by writ of habeas corpus summarily to determine whether the petitioner is restrained of his liberty in violation •of the Constitution of the United States.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitten v. Tomlinson · Goto v. Lane

2. ““This court held that Congress intended to invest the courts of the Union and the justices and judges thereof with power, upon writ of habeas corpus, to restore to liberty any person within their respective jurisdictions who is held in custody, by whatever authority, in violation of the Constitution or any law or treaty of the United States; that the statute contemplated that cases might arise when the power thus conferred should be exercised during the progress of proceedings instituted against the petitioner in a state court, or by or under the authority of a state, on account of the very matter presented for determination by the writ of habeas corpus. But it was adjudged that the statute did not 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; that while the Circuit Court of the United States has the power to do so, and could discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he be restrained of his .liberty in violation of the National Constitution, it is not bound in every case to exercise such power immediately upon application being made for the writ.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Matthews · Ex parte Collins

3. ““ But the power of punishing a witness for testifying falsely in a judicial proceeding belongs peculiarly to the government in whose tribunals that proceeding is had. It is essential to the impartial and efficient administration of justice in the tribunals of the nation, that witnesses should be able to testify freely before them, unrestrained by legislation of the State, or by fear of punishment in the state courts. The administration of justice in the national tribunals would be greatly embarrassed and impeded if a witness testifying before a' court of the United States, or upon a contested ©lection of a member of Congress, were liable to prosecution and punishment in the courts of the State upon a charge of perjury, preferred by a disappointed suitor or contestant, or instigated by local passion or prejudice.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Matthews · In re Atcherley ex rel. Atcherley