Edgerly v. Kennelly’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 420 · 1954
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably Carbo v. United States (1961), Stone v. Morris (1976)
16 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United State v. Morgan · Price v. Johnston · United States v. Hayman · State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co · Ahrens v. Clark
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It must be kept in mind that no question is presented as to the legality of plaintiff’s confinement in Alcatraz. The sole purpose in seeking his presence in Chicago was that he might as a witness give testimony in a civil action. If the court had jurisdiction to require his presence for that purpose, it would seem to follow that it would have jurisdiction to require the presence of any other person confined in prison who was asserted to be a material witness. “Defendants, on the jurisdictional issue, place much stress upon Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 , 68 S.Ct. 1443 , 92 L.Ed. 1898 [1948], while plaintiff relies upon United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 , 72 S.Ct. 263 , 96 L.Ed. 232 [1952], and United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 [ 98 L.Ed. 248 ] [1954]. None of these cases is decisive of the question before us and all may be distinguished on the basis that in each a prisoner was contending that his incarceration was a result of a deprivation of his constitutional rights, while here, in contrast, the action is for the recovery of damages. In the Ahrens case, it was held that a District Court was without jurisdiction to direct a writ of habeas corpus beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In the Hayman case, a federal prisoner made a motion, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 , to set aside his sentence because it was imposed in violation of his constitutional rights. The court held that a District Court under this section had extra territorial jurisdiction to require”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Yager v. Raisor · Ball v. Woods““[w]hile the section augments the power of the court in cases of existing jurisdiction, it in no wise expands or extends its territorial jurisdiction.” Edgerly v. Kennelly, 7 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 420 , 422.”
2 later decisions 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.