Ahrens v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
335 U.S. 188 · 1948
Citation profile
411 federal appellate · 90 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 832 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Jones v. Cunningham (1963), United States v. Hayman (1952)
411 federal appellate · 90 district · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 452 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 50 U.S.C. § 21
Relies on Price v. Johnston · Hirabayashi v. United States · Walker v. Johnston · State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co · Bowen v. Johnston
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 832 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The several justices of the Supreme Court and the several judges of the circuit courts of appeal and of the district courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty. A circuit judge shall have the same power to grant writs of habeas corpus within his circuit that a district judge has within his district; and the order of the circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.” [Emphasis ours.] 1”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus the view that the jurisdiction of the District Court to issue the writ in cases such as this [footnote omitted] is restricted to those petitioners who are confined or detained within the territorial jurisdiction of the court is supported by the language of the statute, by considerations of policy, and by the legislative history of the enactment. We therefore do not feel free to weigh the policy considerations which are advanced for giving district courts discretion in eases like this. If that concept is to be imported into this statute, Congress must do so.””
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.