Ex Parte Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 120 · 1897
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 32 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Frisbie v. Collins (1952), Ponzi v. Fessenden (1922)
94 federal appellate · 32 district · 66 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · Covell v. Heyman · Byers v. McAuley · Robb v. Connolly
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 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t has been the settled doctrine of this court that a court having possession of a person or property cannot be deprived of the right to deal with such person or property until its jurisdiction is exhausted . . . . Although it has been frequently held that, if a defendant in a civil case be brought within the process of the court by a trick or device, the service will be set aside, and he will be discharged from custody. . . . The law will not permit a person to be kidnapped or decoyed within the jurisdiction for the purpose of being compelled to answer to a mere private claim, but in criminal cases the interests of the public override that which is, after all, a mere privilege from arrest.” (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ever since the case of Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 ( 16 L. Ed. 169 ), it has been the settled doctrine of this court that a court having possession of a person or property cannot be deprived of the right to deal with such person or property until its jurisdiction is exhausted, and that no other court has the right to interfere with such custody or possession.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n criminal cases a forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.”
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.