Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 F.1d 653 - In re Spickler

In re Spickler’s Empirical Analysis

43 F. 653 · 1890

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
January 1927
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1927

1 federal appellate ·

201890190019101920decided

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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Leisy v. Hardin · Bowman v. Chicago N W Ry Co · Beer Company v. Massachusetts · Bartemeyer v. Iowa

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

  1. ““I do not question the existence of the power in the United States circuit court to grant writs of habeas corpus when it is alleged that a person is deprived of his liberty by state action contrary to the provisions of the federal constitution, but it is a power to be sparingly exercised. When it appears that the petitioner is held under the judgment of a state court of competent jurisdiction, before this court should grant him a discharge it should be made to appear that the Illegality of his detention is beyond question; and in all eases wherein the pivotal point has not been finally decided by the supreme court, but still remains a debatable question, the circuit court should not discharge the petitioner, for this would he simply converting the writ of habeas corpus into a writ of error, by means of which this court would be asked to review-the judgment of the state court upon a debatable question of law arising trader the federal constitution, but w-hich it w-as the duty of that court to investigate and decide.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In re May

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.