Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 U.S. 241 - Ex parte United States

Ex parte United States’s Empirical Analysis

287 U.S. 241 · 1932

Citation profile

479
cited by 479 later decisions
57
cited 57 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

260 federal appellate · 18 district · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 479 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Gerstein v. Pugh (1975), Will v. United States (1967)

260 federal appellate · 18 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 17 states

11601932194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · McClellan v. Carland · Ex parte United States · McGrain v. Daugherty

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

  1. “conclusively determines the existence of probable cause”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The effect of the refusal of the District Court to issue a warrant upon an indictment fair upon its face and properly found and returned is equivalent to a denial of the absolute right of the government, as matters stand, to put the accused on trial, since that cannot be done in his absence. The mere statement discloses the gravity and public importance of the question. It is obvious that, if a like attitude should be taken by District Courts generally, serious interference with the prosecution of persons indicted for criminal offenses might result. Undoubtedly, upon the theory presented by the government, mandamus is the appropriate remedy; and the writ may well issue from this court in order to expedite the settlement of the important question involved, and, incidentally, in furtherance of the general policy of a prompt trial and disposition of criminal cases. Accordingly, we pass to a consideration of the merits. [[Image here]] “It reasonably cannot be doubted that, in the court to which the indictment is returned, the finding of an indictment, fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury, conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer. Compare McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 156-158 [(1927)]; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 60-62 [(1906) ]. The refusal of the trial court to issue a warrant of arrest under such circumstances is, in reality and effect, a refusal to permit the case to come to a hearing u”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he power and duty of the grand jury ... is not exhausted or limited by adverse action taken by a previous grand jury, and ... a United States district attorney may present, without leave of court, charges which a previous grand jury has ignored.”
    1 later decision 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.