Ex parte Lair’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““It is not to be imputed to the learned judge pronouncing said judgment that he undertook to exercise jurisdiction over the offense of importing into the United States this woman, who the indictment alleges, came as an immigrant from the Republic of France, and consequently over the sea to some Atlantic seaport. That offense was consummated the moment such immigrant was landed within the United States. * * * The court will take judicial notice that a seagoing vessel carrying immigrants .coming from the Republic of France to the United States did not find a port of entry within the Northern district of the state of Illinois. * * * It may be conceded for the sake of argument that the woman in question imported from France might first have entered the Dominion of Canada on the Atlantic seaboard and crossed the boundary into the United States. But how could she have reached Chicago without having theretofore entered United States territory outside of the Northern District of Illinois? If by overland, she would have traversed territory of another state. If by water, it might have been through the Mackinaw Straits, and thence on Lake Michigan to the city of Chicago. But in so coming, at Mackinaw she would have entered the United States, and been within the jurisdiction of the district of Michigan. In ■either contingency the offense of such importation would have been committed prior to reaching the Northern district of the state of Illinois.” 177 Fed. 789 -793-795.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lair

2. ““The first count of the indictment charges, in substance, that the petitioner * * * in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly imported into the United States, for the purpose of prostitution, and unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did hold, to wit, from the 1st day of January, 1906, until the 15th day of July, 1907, in pursuance of such illegal importation, in their certain house of prostitution, there situate, etc., in said city of Chicago, for the purpose of prostitution, a certain alien woman named Marie Peuroy, who was then a citizen of the Republic of France, within three years after she had entered the said United States, and that she came to, and entered, the United States within three years prior thereto, against the peace and dignity,” etc. “Second count charges that the petitioner in the year 1906, and from that time until the 15th "day of July, 1907, at Chicago, in said district, unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully held for the purpose of 'prostitution in pursuance of an illegai importation for the purpose of prostitution in the house of prostitution, at the designated street in said city, the said Marie Peuroy, who was then a citizen of the Republic of France, within three years after she had entered the said United States, and that she came to, and entered said United States within three years prior thereto,” etc.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Krsteff

3. ““It is found from the petition and return and the evidence of record before the court that the said I-Ienry Lair is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by confinement in the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., under judgment of sentence rendered by the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which judgment the court declares to be void and of no effect, for the reasons that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and that that part of the statute on which the indictment was predicated is void, being In contravention of the Constitution of the United States. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lair