Whitten v. Tomlinson’s Empirical Analysis
160 U.S. 231 · 1895
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 47 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 322 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Wainwright v. Sykes (1977), Darr v. Burford (1950)
93 federal appellate · 47 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Royall · Cohens v. Virginia · Burrus · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Roberts v. Reilly
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 322 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Ex parte Royall ( 117 U. S. 241 , 251-253 [ 6 Sup. Ct. 734 , 29 L. Ed. 868 ]), and in New York v. Eno ( 155 U. S. 89 , 93-95 [ 15 Sup. Ct. 30 , 39 L. Ed. 80 ]), it was recognized that in cases of urgency, such as those of prisoners in custody by authority of a state, for an act done or omitted to be done in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order or process of a court of the United States, or otherwise involving the authority and operation of the general government, or its relations to foreign nations, the courts of the United States should interpose by writ of habeas corpus.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, except in such peculiar and urgent cases, the courts of the United States will not discharge the prisoner by habeas corpus in advance of a final -determination of his case in the courts of the state; and, even after such final determination in those courts, will generally leave the petitioner to the usual and orderly course of proceeding by writ of error from this court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Collins · Ex parte Martin““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.””
2 later decisions 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.