Ex parte Hennen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 20 district · 55 state decisions

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

1. “must be held at the will and discretion of some department of the government, and subject to removal at pleasure.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Parsons v. United States · Taylor v. Kercheval

2. ““The Constitution declares that ‘the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments/ It is no doubt usual and proper to vest the appointment of inferior officers in that department of the government, executive or judicial, or in that particular executive department to which the duties of such officers appertain. But there is no absolute requirement to this effect in the Constitution; and, if there were, it would be difficult in many cases to determine to which department an office properly belonged. Take that of marshal, for instance. He is an executive officer, whose appointment, in ordinary cases, is left to the President and Senate. But if Congress should, as it might, vest the appointment elsewhere, it would be questionable whether it should be in the President alone, in the Department of Justice, or in the courts. The marshal is pre-eminently the officer of the courts; and, in case of a vacancy, Congress has in fact passed a law bestowing the temporary appointment of the marshal upon the justice of the circuit in which the district where the vacancy occurs is situated. “But as the Constitution stands, the selection of the appointing power, as between the functionaries named, is a matter resting in the discretion of Congress. And, looking at the subject in a practical light, it is perhaps better that it should rest there, than that the country should be”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. Solomon

3. “* * * If the power to appoint a clerk was vested exclusively in the District Court, and the office was held at the discretion of the Court, as we think it was; then this Court can have no control over the appointment or removal, or entertain any inquiry into the grounds of removal. If the judge is chargeable with any abuse of his power, this is not the tribunal to which he is amenable: and as we have no right to judge upon this matter, or power to afford redress if any is required, we abstain from expressing any opinion upon that part of the case. [Id. at 261-262.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chambers v. United States · Carlin v. McKean