Simon v. Woodson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““ . . . Thus, the only issue to be resolved by a federal court presented with a habeas corpus petition that complains of excessive bail is whether the state judge has acted arbitrarily in setting that bail. . . . [citing cases] Any other rule would not only commit the federal courts to the burdensome task of hearing evidence upon and setting bail de novo in a host of criminal eases, but also and much more intolerable, such a rule would authorize an unwarranted and unconstitutional encroachment upon the prerogatives of the states in the due administration of their processes of criminal justice. We adhere to the standard laid down in Mastrian, [Mastrian v. Hedman, 326 F.2d 708 ], supra, at 710-711 of 326 F.2d: ‘A federal court would not be entitled to act in substitution of judgment for that of the state court. What the state court did would have to be .beyond the range within which judgments could rationally differ in relation to the apparent elements of the situation.’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Finetti v. Harris · 411 F. Supp. 1252 - United States Ex Rel. Rainwater v. Morris

2. “Thus, the only issue to be resolved by a federal court presented with a habeas corpus petition that complains of excessive bail is whether the state judge has acted arbitrarily in setting that bail.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stansel v. Beard · Garcia v. Elrod

3. “(a) In determining the amount of monetary bail or conditions of release, if any, which will reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community, the court shall, on the basis of available information, take into account such matters as the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the condition of the victim, the likelihood of the filing of a greater charge, the weight of the evidence against such defendant, his family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mental condition, past conduct, prior use of alias names or dates of birth, length of residence in the community, whether a foreign national defendant is lawfully admitted in the United States of America, the amount of unrecovered proceeds lost as a result of the alleged offense, record of convictions, and any record of appearance at court proceedings, flight to avoid arrest or prosecution, escape or attempted escape to avoid arrest, or failure to appear at court proceedings. Information used by the court in its findings or stated in or offered in connection with this Section may be by way of proffer based upon reliable information offered by the State or defendant. A proffer by the State must be based upon a written report. All evidence shall be admissible if it is relevant and reliable regardless of whether it would be admissible under the rules of evidence applicable at criminal trials. (b) The amount of bail shall be: (1) Sufficient to assur”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garcia v. Elrod