Frederick Peckham v. William Henkel’s Empirical Analysis
216 U.S. 483 · 1910
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1965 · most notably Hebert v. State of Louisiana (1926), Stallings v. Splain (1920)
13 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 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 Beavers v. Haubert · Moses Haas v. William Henkel · Ex Parte Johnson · Peckham v. Henkel
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That. Peckham is under bond to appear and comply with the order of removal made by Judge Ray, and, therefore, constructively in the custody of his sureties, must be conceded. But if the performance of the condition of that bail bond is rendered impossible by his removal in these subsequent proceedings, at the instance of the United States, the effect may be to exonerate his sureties. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 371 ; Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 85 . But it is said that removal to the District of Columbia is forbidden under Judge Ray’s order of -January 10, 1906, and that a removal under the order made by the commissioner in the proceedings now under review will invalidate the order of Judge Ray. “This is a fanciful claim. He will not be removed under or in pursuance of the original order of removal, execution of which has been stayed, but under an order made in an altogether distinct and subsequent proceeding to answer distinct offenses. “Finally, it is said that the jurisdiction of the court for the northern district of New York, having attached to the person of appellant, must be respected as exclusive until its jurisdiction is exhausted. “The rule is one of comity only, and has a wide application in civil cases, but a limited one in criminal cases. See In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 120, 125 , and Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 84 . But when, as here, the subsequent proceedings for the removal of appellant are to answer indictments later found for other and distin”
1 later decision 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.