Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F.1d 62 - Ex parte Cuddy

Ex parte Cuddy’s Empirical Analysis

40 F. 62 · 1889

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Sanders v. United States (1963), McCleskey v. Zant (1991)

15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

60188918901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Cuddy

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

  1. ““The writ of habeas corpus, it is true, is the writ of freedom, and is so highly esteemed that by the common law of England applications can be made for its issue by one illegally restrained of his liberty to every justice of the kingdom having the right to grant such writs. No appeal or writ of error was allowed there from a judgment refusing a writ of habeas corpus; nor, indeed, could there have been any occasion for snch an appeal or writ of error, as a renewed application could be made to every other justice of the realm. The doctrine of res judicata was not held applicable to a decision of one court or justice thereon; the entire judicial power of the country could thus he exhausted. Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatchf. 5 , and cases there cited. The same doctrine formerly prevailed in the several states of the Union, and, in the absence of statutory provisions, is the doctrine prevailing now. Tn many instances great abuses have attended this privilege, which have led in some of the states to legislation on the subject.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “'The action of the court or justice on the second application will naturally be affected to some degree by the character of the court or officer to whom the first application was made, and the fullness of the consideration given to it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.