Long v. Ansell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 12 district · 19 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““From these authorities it may be concluded, we think, that the term arrest may be applied to any case where a person is taken into custody or restrained of his full liberty, or where the deten tion of a person in custody is continued for even a short period of time.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Willis · 149 F. Supp. 837 - United States v. Scott

2. ““ The summons was issued on Monday, March 27,1933, and served on the defendant on Monday, April 3, 1933, whereas the first session of the Seventy-third Congress was convened on the ninth day of March, 1933, and has remained continuously in session since that date and was in session on the dates of the issuance and service of the said summons (of which fact defendant prays the court to take judicial notice) and the defendant as alleged is a United States Senator who was in attendance upon the meetings of the first session of the Seventy-third Congress of the United States and the summons and service thereof is invalid and of no legal effect whatsoever because in violation of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that Senators and Representatives of the United States ‘ shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Long v. Ansell

3. ““The constitutional exemption has never been interpreted as a retreat for Congressmen and Senators from arrest for crime. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were laws in the states authorizing imprisonment for debt in aid of civil process. Undoubtedly it was to meet this condition that the exemptions in federal and state Constitutions were aimed. The reason for incorporating this provision in the Constitution has largely disappeared. We no longer have imprisonment for • debt, except in a few jurisdictions where an absconding debtor may be arrested and imprisoned. The decisions of the courts, therefore, in limiting the exemption merely to arrests in aid of civil process, and in conformity with the practice of legislation on this subject, have greatly limited the scope of the exemption. That which at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was of substantial benefit to a Member of Congress has been reduced almost to a nullity.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Swope v. Commonwealth