In re Neagle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where a person is in custody under process from a state court of original jurisdiction for an alleged offense against the laws of that state, and it is claimed that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Circuit Court of the United States has a discretion whether it will discharge him in advance of his trial in the court in which he is indicted, although this discretion will be subordinated to any special circumstances requiring immediate action. While the federal courts have the power and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the federal Constitution or laws, they are not bound to exercise such power, even after a state court has finally acted upon the case, but may, in their discretion, require the accused to sue out his writ of error from the highest court of the state, or even from the Supreme Court of the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex parte Caldwell

2. ““What are the rights of the petitioner as to having his case heard and disposed of in the courts of the sovereignty whose servant he is, and whose laws he was employed in executing?. If he has a right to be heard in this court, then we must hear him, willing or unwilling. There is no alternative. Whether the writ should issue in this case was not a question of expediency, and whether the petitioner shall he discharged or remanded is not a question of policy or comity, as suggested in some quarters. It is a question of personal right and personal liberty, arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States, which the court cannot ignore.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re Fox

3. ““It is the exclusive province of the United States courts to ultimately and conclusively determine any question of right, civil or criminal, arising under the laws of the United States. It is therefore the prerogative of the national courts to construe the national statutes, and determine upon habeas corpus whether a homicide, for which the petitioner is charged with murder by the state authorities, was the result of an ‘act done in pursuance of a law of the United States,’ and, when that question has been determined in the affirmative, the prisoner will be discharged, and the state has nothing more to do in the matter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. North Carolina v. Kirkpatrick