Hanges v. Whitfield’s Empirical Analysis
209 F. 675 · 1913
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Wong Wing v. United States · Chin Yow v. United States · United States ex rel. Huber v. Sibray · United States ex rel. D'Amato v. Williams
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court will not in proceedings of this character consider the testimony or the weight thereof, if properly and fairly taken, to determine whether or not it is sufficient to warrant the deportation of an alien. That would be for the proper immigration officials to del ermine. But the court may, and it is its duty to, consider the maimer of procuring the testimony, its competency and legal admissibility against the petitioners, and determine whether or not they have hud a fair.and” impartial hearing or trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Lam Pui
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.