James Tinsley v. Morgan Treat’s Empirical Analysis
205 U.S. 20 · 1907
Citation profile
95 federal appellate · 71 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 248 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1978 · most notably Hyde v. United States (1912), Armour Packing Company v. United States (1908)
95 federal appellate · 71 district · 10 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 Hyde v. Shine · Benson v. McMahon · George Beavers v. William Henkel · Ornelas v. Ruiz
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 248 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““be must look into the indictment, to ascertain whether an offense against the United States is charged, find whether there was probable cause, and determine whether the court to which the accused is sought to be removed has jurisdiction of the same. ‘The liberty of the citizen, and his general right to be tried in a tribunal or forum of his domicile, imposes upon the judge the duty of considering and passing upon those questions.’ ” Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20 , 27 Sup. Ct. 430 , 51 L. Ed. 689 ; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73 , 24 Sup. Ct. 605 , 48 L. Ed. 882 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be conceded no such removal should be summarily and arbitrarily made. There are risks and burdens attending it, which ought not to be needlessly cast upon any individual. These may not be serious in a removal from New York to Brooklyn, but might be if the removal was from San Francisco to New York. And statutory provisions must be interpreted in the light of all that may be done under them. We must never forget that in all controversies, civil or. criminal, between the government and an individual, the latter is entitled to reasonable protection.” Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73 , 24 Sup. Ct. 605 , 48 L. Ed. 882 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While in a removal proceeding * * * an indictment constitutes prima facie evidence of probable cause it is not conclusive, and evidence offered by the defendant tending to show that no offense triable in the district to which removal is sought had been committed is admissible, * * *.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.