Ex parte Burford’s Empirical Analysis
7 U.S. 448 · 1806
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Aguilar v. Texas (1964), Gerstein v. Pugh (1975)
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 22 state decisions
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 United States v. Hamilton
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the charge against him was malicious, or grounded on perjury, whom could he sue for the malicious prosecution, or whom could he indict for perjury?””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon the return of the habeas corpus, and certiorari, it appeared .that on the 28th of December, 1805, Burford was committed to the gaol of Alexandria county, by a warrant under the hands and seals of Jonah Thompson, and ten other justices of the peace for that county; which warrant was -in the following words: ‘Alexandria County — :ss.: Whereas, John A. Burford, of the county aforesaid, shopkeeper, has been brought before a meeting of many of the justices of the peace for the said county, and by them was requiied to find sufficient sureties to be bound with him in a recognizance, himself in the sum of four thousand dollars, and securities for the like sum, for his good behavior towards the citizens of the United States, and their property; and, whereas, the said John A. Burford hath failed or refused to find such sureties. These are, therefore, in the name of the United States, to command you the said constables, forthwith to convey the said John A. Burford to the common gaol of the said county, and to deliver him to the keeper thereof, together with his precept; and we do, in the name of the said United States, hereby command you, the said keeper, to receive the said John A. Burford into your custody, in said gaol and him there safely keep, until he shall find such sureties as aforesaid, or be otherwise discharged by due course of law. Given under our hands and seals this 38th day of December, 1805. To any constable, and the gaoler of the county of Alexandria.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.