In re Barry’s Empirical Analysis
42 F. 113
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2007
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 Swift v. Tyson · United States v. Hudson · Anderson v. Dunn · Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantationss v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ninth section of the first article of the constitution, par. 2, declaring that `the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' does not purport to convey power or jurisdiction to the judiciary. It is in restraint of executive and legislative powers, and no further affects the judiciary than to impose on them the necessity, if the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended by any authority, to decide whether the exigency demanded by the constitution exists to sanction the act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boumediene v. Bush““Tlie incongruity oí awarding proofs, at the Instance of husband or wife, to take away an infant child from the parent having it in nurture and keeping, upon the allegation that such keeping is a wrongful imprisonment, is most palpable and striking'. It is a bold figure of speech, or rather fiction, to which the law ought not to resort, unless indispensably necessary to be employed in preservation of parental rights, or the personal fondness of the child.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A procedure by babeas corpus can in no legal sense be regarded as a suit or controversy between parties. It is an inquisition by the government, at the suggestion ánd instance of an individual, most probably, but still in the name and capacity of the sovereign, to ascertain whether an infant is in this case wrongfully detained, and in a way conducive to its prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.