Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 U.S. 432 - Holman Drew v. Harry Kendall Thaw

Holman Drew v. Harry Kendall Thaw’s Empirical Analysis

235 U.S. 432 · 1914

Citation profile

302
cited by 302 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
36
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 6 district · 192 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 302 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2007 · most notably Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police (1917), Sweeney v. Woodall (1953)

58 federal appellate · 6 district · 192 state decisions — followed in 36 states

5001914192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Bain Jr · Davis v. United States · United States v. Hess · Thompson v. State of Utah · Callan v. Wilson

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

  1. “[S]urrender is not to be interfered with by the summary process of habeas corpus upon speculations as to what ought to be the result of a trial in the place where the Constitution provides for its taking place.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In extradition proceedings, even when, as here, a humane opportunity is afforded to test them upon habeas corpus, the purpose of the writ is not to substitute the judgment of another tribunal upon the facts or the law of the matter to be tried.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “But this is not Thaw's trial. In extradition proceedings ..., the purpose of the writ is not to substitute the judgment of another tribunal upon the facts or the law of the matter to be tried.... And even if it be true that the argument stated offers a nice question, it is a question as to the law of New York which the New York courts must decide.”
    3 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.