Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 U.S. 211 - In re Chapman

In re Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

156 U.S. 211 · 1895

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 1983
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1983 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), Frank v. Mangum (1915)

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

1901895190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Royall · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · Ex Parte Tyler · Coy · Ex parte Parks

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

  1. ““Where a person is in custody under process from a state court of original jurisdiction for an alleged offense against the laws of that state, and it is claimed that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Circuit Court of the United States has a discretion whether it will discharge him in advance of his trial in the court in which he is indicted, although this discretion will be subordinated to any special circumstances requiring immediate action. While the federal courts have the power and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the federal Constitution or laws, they are not bound to exercise such power, even after a state court has finally acted upon the case, but may, in their discretion, require the accused to sue out his writ of error from the highest court of the state, or even from the Supreme Court of the United States.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Any final judgment or decree of the said Court of Appeals may be reexamined and affirmed, reversed or modified, by the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error or appeal, in all- cases in which the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, in the same manner and under the same regulation as heretofore provided for in cases of writs of error on judgments or appeals from decrees rendered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; and also in cases, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in dispute, wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue unless the court, under whose warrant the petitioner is held, is without jurisdiction ; and that it cannot be used to correct errors [citing cases]. Ordinarily the writ will not lie where there is a remedy by writ of error or appeal [citing eases], yet in rare and exceptional cases it may be issued although such remedy exists. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 [ 6 Sup. Ct. 734 , 29 L. Ed. 868 ]; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89 [ 15 Sup. Ct. 30 , 39 L. Ed. 80 ].””
    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.