Rassmussen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 federal appellate · 61 district · 35 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 266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But the same reason could be urged to justify tbe extraordinary remedy of a mandatory injunction in order to put a defendant out of possession, even where the plaintiff was entitled to maintain ejectment or an action in the nature of ejectment. The suggestion referred to leaves out of view the distinction made by the Constitution of the United States between cases in law and cases in equity. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212 , 223, 4 L. Ed. 372 ; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 , 19 L. Ed. 260 ; Van Norden v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378 , 25 L. Ed. 453 ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 , 516, 18 Sup. Ct. 418 , 42 L. Ed. 819 . And it also fails to recognize the provisions of the seventh amendment securing the right of trial by jury in ‘suits at common law' where the value in controversy exceeds $20. That amendment, so far as it secures the right of trial by jury, applies to judicial proceedings in the territories of the United States. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437 , 460, 13 L. Ed. 761 ; American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464 , 466, 17 Sup. Ct. 618 , 41 L. Ed. 1079 ; Springville v. Thomas, 166 U. S. 707 , 17 Sup. Ct. 717 , 41 L. Ed. 1172 . So that a court of a territory, authorized, as Oklahoma was, to paSs laws not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States ( 26 Stat. 81 , 84, e. 182, § 6), could not proceed in a ‘common-law’ action as if it were a suit In equity and determine by mandatory injunction rights for the protection or enforcement of which there was a plain ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carlson v. Sullivan

2. ““The third article of the Constitution provides that ‘the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crime shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.’ The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall ‘be deprived of life,' liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ By the Sixth Amendment it is declared that ‘in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury-of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory' process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.’ The contention of the appellant is, that the offense with which he is charged is a ‘crime’ within the meaning of the third article of the Constitution, and that he was entitled to be tried by a jury; that his trial by the police court, without, .a jury, was'not ‘due process of law’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and that, in any event, the prosecution against him was a ‘criminal prosecution,’ in which he was entitled, by the Sixth Amendment, to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 13 Okla. Crim. 30 - Ex Parte Johnson

3. ““ In Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 , the question was whether the Sixth Amendment was controlling upon Congress in legislating for the Philippine Islands. Applying the principles which caused a majority. of the judges who concurred in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 , to think that the uniformity clause of the Constitution was inapplicable to Porto Rico, and following the ruling announced in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197 , it was decided that, whilst by the treaty with Spain the Philippine Islands had come under the sovereignty of the United States and were subject to its control as a dependency or possession, those Islands had not been incorporated into the United States as a part thereof, and therefore Congress, in legislating concerning them, was subject only to the provisions of the Constitution applicable to territory occupying that relation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Territory of Alaska v. Troy