United States v. Tureaud’s Empirical Analysis
20 F. 621 · 1884
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1979 · most notably Albrecht v. United States (1927), Moses Haas v. William Henkel (1910)
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
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 Blythe v. Tompkins · Vannatta v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The procedure by Information, therefore, after It was acted upon by this amendment, lost its prerogative function or quality. It could not thereafter be the vehicle of preferring any arbitrary accusation — not by the king, because we have in the department of criminal law no successor to him, so far as he represented a right to institute, if it pleased him, unsupported incriminations; nor by the district attorney, nor by any other officer of the United States, for the Constitution has said, in effect, that in no way nor manner shall magistrates or courts issue warrants, except upon proofs, which are to be upon oath and make probable excuse. See State v. Mitchell, 1 Bay [S. C.] 267, and 1 Op. Attys. Gen. 229, where Mr. Attorney General Wirt holds that even the president is controlled by this amendment. All arbitrary information, all informations which spring into existence simply because the king and his attorney elected to present them, indeed all informations, except those supported by proof upon oath, which constitute probable cause, by this constitutional provision were expunged from permissible procedures, and the learning about informations was left valuable only as showing what proofs were considered adequate in cases where proofs had to be presented in order to have them acted upon by the judicial discretion or mind. “The master of the crown, whose duties with regard to informations to be sustained by proofs correspond with the district attorneys’ of the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But the adoption of the fourth amendment affected all kinds and modes of prosecution for crimes or offenses, for there can be no legal pursuit of accused-persons without apprehension. All prosecutions require warrants. An information, a suggestion of a criminal charge to a court, is a vain thing, unless it is followed by a capias. The procedure by information, therefore, after it was acted upon by this amendment, lost its prerogative function or quality. It could not thereafter be the vehicle of preferring any arbitrary accusation — not by kings because we have in the department of criminal law no successor to him, so far as he represented a right to institute, if it pleased him, unsupported incriminations. Nor by the District Attorney, nor any other officer of the United States, for the Constitution has said in effect that in no way nor manner shall magistrates or courts issue warrants, except upon proofs, which are to be upon oath and make probable excuse.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““No warrant of arrest shall be issued by any commissioner upon mere belief or suspicion of the person making such charge; but only niton probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation of such person, in which shall be stated the facts within ids own knowledge constituting the grounds for such a belief, or suspicion.””
1 later decision 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.