Perry v. Gwartney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““Petitioner next argues that when he finished his sentence of a year and a day in the federal penitentiary of Kansas he was then at liberty on probation from the federal court of Kansas and cannot be prosecuted for any other crime while he is thus under the wing of the federal court. In this connection he relies upon Grant v. Guernsey, 63 F. 2d 163 . That was a case where a party in Kansas pleaded guilty in federal court to a violation of the federal banking laws and was sentenced upon the charge and released upon probation. While he was thus at liberty on probation the county attorney of the county where the crime had been committed sought to prosecute him for violation of the state statutes. The federal court held that he could not be so prosecuted. The Guernsey case seems to turn upon the fact that no request had been made to the federal court for release of its jurisdiction and control over Guernsey so that he could be tried by the state court. The court also pointed out that it was not clear as to whether the federal court would be compelled to release or whether it was discretionary. Regardless of the holding in the Guernsey case we prefer the rule announced in In re Andrews, 236 Fed. 300 , where it was held that the question of which court should have the custody of a defendant was one of comity between the two governments and not a personal right of the prisoner and could not be raised by him.” (p. 612.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. Turner · Ohrazada v. Turner

2. ““ ‘When the court of one sovereign takes a person into its custody on a criminal charge he remains in the jurisdiction of that sovereign until it has been exhausted, to the exclusion of the courts of the other sovereign. That rule rests upon principles of comity, and it exists between federal and state courts. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U. S. 254 , 42 S. Ct. 309 , 66 L. Ed. 607 , 22 A. L. R. 879; Grant v. Guernsey, 10 Cir., 63 F. 2d 163 , certiorari denied 289 U. S. 744 , 53 S. Ct. 688 , 77 L. Ed. 1491 . But either the federal or a state government may voluntarily surrender its prisoner to the other without the consent of the prisoner, and in such circumstances the question of jurisdiction and custody is purely one of comity between the two sovereigns, not a personal right of the prisoner which he can assert in a proceeding of this kind. Ponzi v. Fessenden, supra; In re Andrews, D. C., 236 F. 300 .’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Morton · Davis v. Rhyne