Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 Ariz. 261 - Simpson v. Owens

Simpson v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio (2014)

4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

330200420102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 794

Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · United States v. Salerno · Armstrong v. Manzo · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Stack v. Boyle

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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “either be committed to prison, or give bail: that is, put in securities for his appearance, to answer the charge against him. This commitment, therefore, being only for safe custody, wherever bail will answer the same intention, it ought to be taken; as in most of the inferior crimes; but in felonies, and other offences of a capital nature, no bail can be a security equivalent to the actual custody of the person. For what is there that a man may not be induced to forfeit to save his own life? and what satisfaction or indemnity is it to the public, to seize the effects of them who have bailed a murderer, if the murderer himself be suffered to escape with impunity? [W]here the imprisonment is only for safe custody before the conviction, and not for punishment afterwards, in such cases bail is ousted or taken away, wherever the offence is of a very enormous nature: for then the public is entitled to demand nothing less than the highest security that can be given, viz., the body of the accused; in order to insure that justice shall be done upon him, if guilty. Such persons, therefore, . . . have no other sureties but the four walls of the prison.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “From the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73 , 91, to the present Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 46(a)(1), ... federal law has unequivocally provided that a person arrested for a non-capital offense shall be admitted to bail. This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t would be a rare occasion when an adequate bail hearing could be conducted at the initial appearance for a [Proposition 100] offense.... [I]t is not feasible for the bail hearing to take place at the time of the initial hearing if for no other reason than that the accused must be given adequate notice to prepare for the hearing.”
    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.