Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 U.S. 400 - Barth v. Clise

Barth v. Clise’s Empirical Analysis

79 U.S. 400 · 1870

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
November 1998
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1998 · most notably Stallings v. Splain (1920), Whitney v. Wyman (1879)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 14 states

1201870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Slacum v. Pomery

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

  1. ““And pending the examination or hearing, the prisoner, in all cases, on the return of the writ, is detained, not on the original warrant, but under the authority of the writ of habeas corpus. He may be bailed on the return de die in diem, or be remanded to the same jail whence he came, or to any other place of safe keeping under the control of the court, or officer issuing the writ, and by its order brought up from time to time, till the court or officer, determines whether it is proper to discharge or remand him absolutely.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The plaintiff's in error, according to their own showing, had not a shadow of a right to recover in this action against Clise. Conceding, for the purposes of this opinion, that the court below erred in «11 the particulars complained of, tho errors have done them no harm. Opposite rulings could not have helped them. Their case was inherently defective. The defect was incurable, and Inevitably fatal. When such a defect exists, whether it be or be not brought to the attention of the court below, or of this court, by counsel, it is our duty to consider it, and to give it effect.””
    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.