Henry Urquhart v. Thomas Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

132 federal appellate · 45 district · 11 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 320 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the settled doctrine of this court that, although the Circuit Courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges thereof, have authority, under existing statutes, to discharge, upon habeas corpus, one held in custody by state authority in violation of the Constitution or of any treaty or law of the United States, the court, justice or judge has a discretion as to the time and mode in which the power so conferred shall be exerted; and that in view of the relations existing, under our system of government, between the judicial tribunals of the Union and of the several states, a federal court or a federal judge will not ordinarily interfere by habeas corpus with the regular course of procedure under state authority, but will leave the ap plieant for the writ of habeas corpus to exhaust the remedies afforded by the state for determining whether he is illegally restrained of his liberty. After the highest court of the state, competent under the state law to dispose of the matter, has finally acted, the case can be brought to this court for re-examination. The exceptional cases in .which a federal court or judge may sometimes appropriately interfere by habeas corpus in advance of final action by the authorities of the state are those of great urgency that require to be promptly disposed of, such, for instance, as eases 'involving the authority and operations of the general government, or the obligations of this country to; or its relations with, foreign nations”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · Ex parte Roach

2. ““From these eases it clearly appears, as the settled and proper procedure, that while Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction * ⅜ * to issue the writ of habeas corpus, yet these courts ought not to exercise that jurisdiction by the discharge of a prisoner unless in eases of peculiar urgency, and that instead of discharging they will leave the prisoner to be dealt with by the courts of the state; that after a final determination of the case by the state court the federal courts will even then generally leave the petitioner to his remedy by writ of error from this court. The reason for this course is apparent. It is an exceedingly delicate jurisdiction given to the federal courts, by ivliieli a person tinder an indictment in a state court and subject to its laws may, by the decision of a single judge of the federal court upon a writ of habeas corpus, be taken out of the custody of the oiiicers of the state and finally discharged therefrom, and thus a trial by the state courts of an indictment found under the laws of a state be finally prevented.””

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

3. ““When any person indicted or informed against for an offense shall, on trial, be acquitted by reason of insanity, the jury, in giving their verdict of not guilty, shall state that it was given for such cause; and thereupon, if the discharge or going at large of such insane person shall be considered by the court manifestly dangerous to the peace and safety of the community, the court may order him to be committed to prison, or may give him into the care of. his friends, if they shall give bonds, with surety to the satisfaction of the court, conditioned that he shall be well and securely kept; otherwise he shall be discharged.” (2 Ballin. Anno. Codes & Stat. of Wash. § 6959.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Clark