In re Fox’s Empirical Analysis
51 F. 427 · 1892
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1957
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Royall · Covell v. Heyman · Boardman v. Toffey · In re Neagle
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a state court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction, the tribunal which first gets it holds it to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction invoked is exhausted; and this rule applies alike in both civil and criminal cases. It is, indeed, a principle of universal jurisprudence that where jurisdiction has attached to person or thing, it is—unless there is some provision to the contrary—exclusive in effect until it has wrought its function.” Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400 , 9 L. Ed. 470 ; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 584 , 15 L. Ed. 1028 ; Troutman’s Case, 24 N. J. Law, 634 ; Ex parte Jenkins & Crosson, 2 Am. Law Reg. 144 , Fed. Cas. No. 7,259. See, also, Covell v. Heyman, 111 U S. 176 , 4 Sup. Ct. 355 , 28 L. Ed. 390 ; In re Fox (D. C.) 51 Fed. 427 ; Mackin v. People (Ill.) 8 N. E. 178 ; U. S. v. French, 1 Gall. 1 , Fed. Cas. No. 15,165; Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355 , Fed. Cas. No. 11,935.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any party charged with a criminal offense and admitted to bail, may, in vacation, be arrested by his bail, and delivered to the marshal or his deputy, before any judge or other officer having power to commit for such offense; and at the request of such bail, the judge or other officer shall recommit the party so arrested to the custody of the marshal, and indorse on the recognizance, or certified copy thereof, the discharge and exoneretur of such bail; and the party so committed shall therefrom be held in custody until discharged by due course of law.””
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.