Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 311 - Fernandez v. Phillips

Fernandez v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 311 · 1925

Citation profile

765
cited by 765 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

366 federal appellate · 69 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 765 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Quinn v. Robinson (1986), United States Hughes v. Gault U S (1926)

366 federal appellate · 69 district · 9 state decisions

212019251930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Collins v. Loisel · Benson v. McMahon · Leibel Pincusov Glucksman v. William Henkel · Oteiza v. Jacobus

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

  1. “whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.”
    54 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is not necessarily evidence competent to convict.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is objected in the first place that the complaint and warrant are defective. The complaint was filed by an Assistant District Attorney of the United States for the District of New Hampshire. It alleged that the complainant was informed ‘through diplomatic channel’ that the appellant was duly and legally charged by the United States of Mexico with the crime, and on behalf of that government prayed the arrest. Of course whatever form of words was used, the complaint necessarily was upon information, but as appeared at the hearing it was filed by order of the Attorney General, upon request of the Secretary of State, enclosing a request for the extradition from the Mexican Government and a copy of proceedings in a Mexican Court finding that the crime was duly proved against the appellant and ordering his arrest, many pages of evidence being appended. This was enough. Yordi v. Nolte, 215 U.S. 227, 231, 232 , 30 S. Ct. 90 , 54 L.Ed. 170 ; Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371, 375, 376 , 21 S.Ct. 406 , 45 L.Ed. 577 ; Glueksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 514 , 31 S.Ct. 704 , 55 L.Ed. 830 .”“It is objected in the first place that the complaint and warrant are defective. The complaint was filed by an Assistant District Attorney of the United States for the District of New Hampshire. It alleged that the complainant was informed ‘through diplomatic channel’ that the appellant was duly and legally charged by the United States of Mexico with the crime, and on behalf of that government prayed the a”
    2 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.