Carbo v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
191 federal appellate · 27 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 347 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Fay v. Noia (1963), United States v. Mauro (1978)
191 federal appellate · 27 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCarbo v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Price v. Johnston · United States v. Hayman · Ponzi v. Fessenden · State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co
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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although our own practice has limited the jurisdiction of courts and justices to issue the Great Writ, we have never abandoned the English system as to the ad prosequendum writ.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Chief Justice [Marshall in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch (8 U.S.) 75, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807)], following the English practice, particularly 3 Blackstone, Commentaries , noted, that the writ ad prosequendum was necessary to remove a prisoner in order to prosecute him in the proper jurisdiction wherein the offense was committed. In his discussion of the common usage of the various writs, he recognized in Ex parte Bollman, supra, that the Congress had without qualification authorized the customary issuance of the writ ad prosequendum by a jurisdiction not the same as that wherein the prisoner was confined." 364 U.S. at 615 , 81 S.Ct. at 341 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A federal writ of habeas corpus [ ad prosequendum ] under § 2241 is... a federal court order, commanding the presentation of a prisoner for prosecution or as a witness in a federal court. It is judicially controlled by the federal district court, which may issue it for the production of a prisoner when `it is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.