Stewart v. Ramsay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

94 federal appellate · 37 district · 117 state decisions

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

1. “The privilege which is asserted here is the privilege of the court, rather than of the defendant. It is founded in the necessities of the judicial administration, which would be often embarrassed, and sometimes interrupted, if the suitor might be vexed with process while attending upon the court for the protection of his rights, or the witness while attending to testify.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Page Co. v. Macdonald · Lamb v. Schmitt

2. ““* * * The true rule, well founded in reason and sustained by the greater weight of authority, is that suitors, as well as witnesses, coming from another state or jurisdiction, are exempt from the service of civil process while in attendance upon court-, and during a reasonable time in coming and going.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Page Co. v. Macdonald · Church v. Church

3. ““Courts of justice ought, everywhere, to he open, accessible, free from interruption, and to cast a perfect protection around every man who necessarily approaches them. The citizen, in every claim of right which he exhibits, and every defense which he is obliged to make, should be permitted to approach them, not only without subjecting himself to evil, but even free from the fear of molestation or hindrance. He should also be enabled to procure, without difficulty, the attendance of all such persons as are necessary to manifest his rights. Now, this great object in the administration of justice, would, in a variety of ways he obstructed, if parties and witnesses were liable to be served with process, while actually attending the court. It is often matter of great importance to the citizen, to prevent the institution and prosecution of a suit in any court, at a distance from his home and his means of defense; and the fear that a suit may be commenced there by summons, will as effectually prevent his approach as if a capias might he served upon him. This is especially the case with citizens of neighboring states, to whom the power which the court possesses of compelling attendance cannot reach.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Iverson