Ableman v. Booth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 27 district · 116 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 321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We do not question the authority of state court, or judge, who is authorized by the laws of the state to issue the writ of habeas corpus, to issue it in any ease where the party is imprisoned within its territorial limits, provided it does not appear, when the application is made, that the person imprisoned is in custody under the authority of the United States. The court or judge has a right to inquire, in this mode of proceeding, for what cause and by what authority the prisoner is confined within the territorial limits of the state sovereignty. And it is thé duty of the marshal, or other person having the custody of the prisoner, to make known to the judge or court,- by a proper return, the authority by which he holds him in custody. This right to inquire by process of habeas corpus, and the duty of the officer to make a return,’ grows, necessarily, but of the complex character of our government, and the existence of two distinct and separate sovereignties within the same territorial space, each of them restricted in its powers, and each within its sphere of action, prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, independent of the other. But, after the return is made, and the state judge or court judicially apprised that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, they can proceed no fur? ther. They then know that the prisoner is within the dominion and jurisdiction of another government, and that neither the writ of habeas corpus, nor any othe”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Covell v. Heyman · Ponzi v. Fessenden

2. ““And the powers of the general government and of the state, although both exist and are exercised within the same territorial limits, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other within their respective spheres. And the sphere of action appropriated to the United States is as far beyond the reach of the judicial process issued by a state judge or a state court as if the line of division was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye. And the state of Wisconsin had no more power to authorize these proceedings of its judges and courts than it would have had if the prisoner had been confined in Michigan, or any other state of the Union, for an offense against the laws of the state in which he was imprisoned. It is in the consideration of this distinct and independent character of the government of the United States from that of the government of the several states that the solution of thf question presented in this case, and in similar cases, must be found. There are within the territorial limits of each state two governments, restricted in their spheres of action, but independent of each other, and supreme within their respective spheres. Each has its separate departments, each has its distinct laws, and each has its own tribunals for their enforcement. Neither government can intrude within the jurisdiction, or. authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers with the action, of the other. The two governmen”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Covell v. Heyman · Feldman v. United States

3. ““Nor is there anything in the supremacy of the general government or the jurisdiction of its judicial tribunals to awaken the jealousy or offend the natural and just pride of state sovereignty. Neither this government nor the power of which we are speaking were forced upon the states. The Constitution of the United States, with all the powers conferred by it on the general government and surrendered by the states, was the voluntary act of the people of the several states, deliberately done for their protection and safety against injustice from one another. * * * And their anxiety to preserve it in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority on the part of a state, is proved by the clause which requires the members of the state legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states (as well as those of the general government), shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. This is the last and closing clause of the Constitution, and inserted when the whole frame of government, with the powers hereinbefore specified, had been adopted by the Convention, and it was in that form, and with those powers, that the Constitution was submitted to the people of the several states for their consideration and decision. * * * Now, it certainly can he no humiliation to the citizens of a republic to yield a ready obedience fo the laws as administered by the constituted authorities. On the contrary, it”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama · Biklen v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, CITY SCHOOL DIST., SYRACUSE, NY