Caldwell v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Previous to" its enactment, the offences designated were punishable by the State Courts, and persons in the military service who committed them were delivered over to those courts for trial; and it contains no words indicating an intention on the part of Congress to take from them the jurisdiction in this respect which they have always exercised. With the knozvn hostility of the American people to any interference by the military with the regular administration of justice in the civil courts, no such intention should be ascribed to Congress in the absence of clear and direct language to that effect. “We do not mean to intimate that it was not within the competency of Congress to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon military courts over offences committed by persons in the military service of the United States. As Congress is expressly authorized by the Constitution ‘to raise and support armies,’ and ‘to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’ its control over the whole subject of the formation, organization, and government of the national armies, including therein the punishment of offences committed by persons in the military service, would seem to be plenary. All we now affirm is, that by the law- to which we are referred, the thirtieth section of the Enrollment Act, no such exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the military tribunals mentioned. No public policy would have been subserved by investing them with such jurisdiction, and many rea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Canella

2. ““When any person subject to military law, except one who is held by the military authorities'to answer, or who is awaiting trial or result of trial, or who is undergoing sentence for a crime or offense punishable under these articles, is accused of a crime or offense committed within the geographical limits of the States of the Union and the District of Columbia, and punishable by the laws of the land, the commanding officer is required, except in time of war, upon application duly made, to use his utmost endeavor to deliver over such accused person to the civil authorities, or to aid the officers of justice in apprehending and securing him, in order that he may be brought to trial. Any commanding officer who upon such application refuses or willfully neglects, except in time of war, to deliver over such accused person to the civil authorities or to aid the officers of justice in apprehending and securing him shall be dismissed from the service or suffer such other punishment as a court-martial may-direct. “When, under the provisions of this article, delivery is made to the civil authorities of an offender undergoing sentence of a court-martial, such delivery, if followed by conviction, shall be held to interrupt the execution of the sentence of the court-martial, and the offender shall be returned to military custody, after having answered to the civil authorities for his offense, for the completion of the said court-martial sentence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. State

3. ““And this conclusion harmonizes with the principles of interpretation applied to the Articles of War previous to 1916; Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 , 26 S.Ct. 229 , 50 L.Ed. 343 ; Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 , 27 S.Ct. 749 , 51 L.Ed. 1084 , 11 Ann.Cas. 640; Franklin v. United States, 216 U.S. 559 , 30 S.Ct. 434 , 54 L.Ed. 615 ; Steiner’s Case, 6 Op.Atty.Gen. 413, and is, moreover, in accord with the decided cases which have considered the contention of exclusive power in the military courts as resulting from the Articles of 1916 which we have here considered. People v. Denman [ 179 Cal. 497 ], 177 P. 461 ; Funk v. State [ 84 Tex.Cr.R. 402 ], 208 S.W. 509 ; United States v. Hirsch, D.C., 254 F. 109 . “It follows, therefore, that the contention as to the enlargement of military power, as the mere result of a state of war, and the consequent complete destruction of state authority, are without merit and that the court was right in so deciding and hence its judgment must be and it is affirmed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Matthews