Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 U.S. 193 - Ex Parte Tobias Watkins

Ex Parte Tobias Watkins’s Empirical Analysis

28 U.S. 193 · 1830

Citation profile

511
cited by 511 later decisions
108
cited 108 times by the Supreme Court
36
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

155 federal appellate · 27 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 511 later decisions (108 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

155 federal appellate · 27 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 36 states

71018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Hudson · Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout · Kearney · Rose v. Himely

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

  1. “[t]he judgment of the circuit court in a criminal case is of itself evidence of its own legality,”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The writ of habeas corpus is a high preogative writ, known to the common law, the great object of which is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause.” Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 193, 201, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Thiíi application is made to a court which bas no jurisdiction in criminal cases [United States v. More, 3 Cranch, 169 , 2 L. Ed. 397 ]; which could not revise this judgment; could not reverse or affirm it, were the record brought up directly by writ of error. The power, however, to award writs of habeas cor)ms is conferred expressly on this court by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power; the question is, whether this be a case in which it ought to be exercised.””
    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.