People v. Burden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““‘With the end of armed hostility between the North and South came a period of political domination by Northerners of their fellow citizens in the South. Large numbers of Federal troops were extensively used in the South to enforce the law and to support the new carpetbag government. The reconstruction act of 1867 implemented Congressional belief that military rule was necessary in the southern states. It was the “outrageous meddling” of Federal troops in the 1876 presidential elections in the South which precipitated the proposal and passage of the act.’ 94 Mich.App. 218 -219, 288 N.W.2d 392 (1979). “Examination of the Senate debate on the enactment is illuminating. The proponents were seeking to overrule an Attorney General’s opinion on which these post-Civil-War actions had been based. 3 Senator Merrimon of North Carolina said: “‘The people are interested in the law; it is their law; it is their duty to execute it, and the Army, their Army—for it is their Army at last— is only to be used in extreme cases and in the last resort. ... “‘Now, sir, we know by sad experience that the Army has been used not once, but time and time again, in a way that not a court in this nation would sanction. The Army has not only been used in the collection of the internal revenue in a way not authorized by law, but it has been used and prostituted to control elections repeatedly. ... The object of this section is to prevent a like prostitution of the Army in the future.’ 4 “Senator Windom aske”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 121 Cal. App. 3d 215 - People v. Blend

2. “In cooperating with and assisting the civilian police agency, Hall was not acting as a member of the military. He was acting only as a civilian. His military status was merely incidental to and not essential to his involvement with the civilian authorities. He was not in military uniform. He was not acting under military orders. He did not exercise either explicitly or implicitly any military authority. Moreover, Hall was not a regular law enforcement agent of the military, nor does the record suggest that Hall’s usefulness to civilian authorities was in any way enhanced by virtue of his being a military man. As we read the record, the assistance rendered by Hall was in no way different from the cooperation which would have been given by a private citizen offered the same opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution. To paraphrase [legislative history of the bill] Hall’s character as ‘part of the Army or the Air Force’ was irrelevant to the assistance he rendered to the civilian authorities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 103 F. Supp. 2d 1226 - United States v. Hitchcock