George Beavers v. William Henkel’s Empirical Analysis
194 U.S. 73 · 1904
Citation profile
110 federal appellate · 75 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. (1974), Ponzi v. Fessenden (1922)
110 federal appellate · 75 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Ex parte Lange · Ex parte Virginia · Ex Parte Nielsen · Ex parte Siebold
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[The grand jury] are only to hear evidence on behalf of the prosecution; for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined . .” Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 84 , 24 S.Ct. 605, 607 , 48 L.Ed. 882 (1904).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In an extradition the nation surrendering relies for future protection of the alleged offender upon the good faith of the nation to which the surrender is made, while here the full protecting power of the United States is continued after the removal from the place of arrest to the place of trial. It may be conceded that no such removal should be summarily and arbitrarily made.” Beavers v. Henkel, supra, 194 U.S. at page 83 , 24 S.Ct. at page 606 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The appellant, residing in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, was indicted with many others by a grand jury in the Northern district of Ohio for conspiring to violate a law of the United States, namely, the National Prohibition Act. * * * Desiring-his removal to Ohio, the government instituted proceedings in Philadelphia before a United States commissioner, and at the hearing offered a certified copy of the indictment in proof -of probable cause and produced a witness who identified the appellant as one of the defendants against whom he had testified before the grand jury. On cross-examination counsel for the appellant sought to bring out the substance and source of the evidence the witness had given the grand jury but was prevented by an adverse ruling of the commissioner. The appellant, in an effort to overcome the probable cause thus established, testified that he was innocent of the crime ■charged against him and produced evidence of his good reputation. The commissioner entered an order of arrest and removal, and the appellant at once presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to a judge of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that his commitment to and detention by the marshal was unlawful and praying that he be discharged from custody. The learned judge dismissed the petition and this appeal followed. “The facts in this ease raise no new question of law. Judges in this circuit have reviewed the law of the ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.