Morse v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
267 U.S. 80 · 1925
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 16 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Ex parte United States (1932), United States Kassin v. Mulligan US (1935)
97 federal appellate · 16 district · 16 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 Salinger v. Loisel · Beavers v. Haubert · Covell v. Heyman · Collins v. Loisel · George Henry v. William 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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“« * * * if there be a violation of the rule of comity here, it primarily concerns only the courts or the sovereignty which is their common superior, and cannot avail the appellants indicted for crimes in the different jurisdictions. Moreover, their constitutional rights are not affected; and if there was error in any respect, it is not reviewable on ha-beas corpus.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“principle that when the jurisdiction of a court has attached, it must be respected as exclusive until exhausted, is a rule of comity, having a wide application in civil cases but a limited one in criminal cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The indictment was before the commissioner simply as evidence for the purpose of establishing or tending to establish the commission of an offense; and the commissioner had authority to pass upon its effect in that aspect only. The court reviewing the action of the commissioner under section 1014 upon habeas corpus was governed by the same rules and its decision was subject to the same limitation.” * * * “In other words, the commissioner, or the court in review on habeas corpus, for lack of power cannot conclusively adjudge the indictment, qua indictment, to be either good or bad or pass finally upon the- guilt or innocence of the accused. * * * Upon the ease here presented, the trial court alone had plenary jurisdiction over the cause and consequently alone had plenary power to pass upon the sufficiency of the indictment as the pleading which initiated and was the foundation of the prosecution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. De Nova v. Levy
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.