Andrews v. Swartz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 15 district · 29 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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The statute of New Jersey eniitled ‘An act regulating proceedings in criminal cases,’ approved March 27, 1874 (Revision [of 1877], p. 266), which declares that writs of error in criminal cases punishable with death shall be considered writs of grace, and not writs of right (Id. p. 283), was brought forward from an act passed March 6, 1795. [Laws of New Jersey] (Revision 1821, pp. 184, 186, § 13). “The contention of appellant is that such a statute is in violation of the constitution of the United States. If it were necessary, upon this appeal, to consider that question, we would only repeat what was said in McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 , 687, 14 S.Ct. 913 [ 38 L.Ed. 867 ]: ‘An appeal from a judgment of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal. A review by an appellate court of the final judgment in a criminal case, however grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, was not at common law, and is not now, a necessary element of due process of law. It is wholly within the discretion of the state to allow or not to allow such a review.’ ‘It is therefore clear that the right of appeal may be accorded by the state to the accused upon such terms as, in its wisdom, may be proper;’ and ‘whether an appeal should be allowed, and, if so, under what circumstances or on what conditions, are matters for each state to' determine for itself.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chessman v. People · Ex parte Januszewski

2. ““The repugnancy of a statute to tbe Constitution of the state by whose Legislature it was enacted cannot authorize a writ of habeas corpus from a court of the United States unless the petitioner is in custody by virtue of such statute, and unless also the statute is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Wyman · Connella v. Haskell

3. ““Even if it be assumed that the state court improperly denied to the accused, after he had been arraigned, and pleaded ‘Not guilty/ [italics ours] the right to show by proof that persons of his race were arbitrarily excluded by the sheriff from the panel of grand or petit jurors solely because of their race, it would not follow that the court lost jurisdiction of the case, within the meaning of the well-established rule that a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court will not be discharged on habeas corpus unless the court that passed the sentence was so far without jurisdiction that its proceedings must be regarded as void. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 , 375 [ 25 L. Ed. 717 ]; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278 , 287, 11 S. Ct. 738 [ 35 L. Ed. 505 ]; In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291 , 297, 11 S. Ct. 770 [ 35 L. Ed. 510 ]; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100 , 15 S. Ct. 34 [ 39 L. Ed. 84 ], When a state court has entered upon the trial of a criminal case, under a statute not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and has jurisdiction of the offense and of the accused, no mere error in the conduct of the trial should be made the basis of jurisdiction in a court of the United States to review the proceedings upon writ of habeas corpus.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hale v. Crawford