Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Caleb Powers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125 federal appellate · 49 district · 18 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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right ... to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi v. Gertge · Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia

2. ““§ 3.82 — Denial by acts of Judges or officers. “Denials of equal rights resulting from the constitution or laws of a state must be distinguished from those caused by the acts of judicial or administrative officers. The wrong in the one case is the direct and necessary result of the state law, of its necessary operation proprio vigore, while in the other it results from the administration of the law. In the former case, the action is removable, and in the latter it is not * * * “Since the denial of equal rights which will justify a removal must be the result of the constitution or laws of the state, there is no right of removal where the alleged discrimination against defendant, in respect of his equal rights, is due to illegal or corrupt acts of administrative officers, unauthorized by the state constitution or laws. It is incumbent upon the state court to see to it that the accused has a fair trial, and its failure so to do is remediable in the state courts or ultimately in the highest court of the nation. The removal provision under consideration does not contemplate a removal where neither the constitution nor laws of the state deny the litigant his civil rights, but where there is a criminal misuse or violation of the state law by some subordinate officer which results in depriving the litigant of the rights which the state law accords to him. Alleged existence of race prejudice, interfering with a fair trial, is not ground for removal, where the prejudice cannot be attr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 165 F. Supp. 738 - State of Texas v. Dorris

3. ““That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil-nature, at common law or in equity,where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value oh two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid; . . . But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a. Circuit or District Court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or. proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant;-but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant; . . “Sec. 2. That any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity arising .under the Constitution dr laws of the United States, or treaties made; or which shall, be made, under their authority, of which -the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preced”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Wisner