Miner v. Markham’s Empirical Analysis
28 F. 387 · 1886
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1934
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Harkness v. Hyde · Atchison v. Morris · Brooks v. Farwell · Larned v. Griffin · Massey v. Leaming
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To entitle the defendant to tlie privilege here invoked, ho must have been in good faith on his way to the seat of government to enter upon the discharge of ills public duties; that must have been the primary object of his journey. He must have left his residence in California with iho intent of then going to Washington to take his seat in the Congress to which he was elected, and the time taken for the journey must have been reasonable. He had a right, without forfeiture of Ms privilege, to set out from his residence at such time before the session should open as would enable him conveniently to establish his quarters, and settle his family and household affairs at the Capital, and also, I think, to enable him to inform himself as a new member regarding pending legislation, so that he might enter advisedly upon the discharge of his duties. A slight deviation from, the usual route for rest, convenience, or because of family sickness, ought not to cause a loss of his privilege, if such deviation was but an incident to the principal journey. Nor ought the duration of the privilege to be strictly measured by the exact number of days, with the present facilities for travel required for a journey from his residence in California to Washington. At the same time, his privilege c.gula not and ought not to avail him if the deviation was equivalent to an abandonment of the original journey for purposes of pleasure or family visiting. If, when he left his home in California, his intent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fitzhugh v. Reid“served with any process of the courts of law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Long v. Ansell
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.