Taylor v. Taintor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

143 federal appellate · 54 district · 274 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 606 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner.”

   76 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Barnard · Polk v. State Bar of Texas

2. “"A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flores · Big Louie Bail Bonds, LLC v. State

3. “I am unable to concur in the judgment rendered by the majority of the court in this case. I agree with them that sureties on a recognizance can only be discharged from liability by the performance of the condition stipulated, unless that become impossible by the act of God, or of the law, or of the obligee. But I differ from them in the application of their term act of the law. If I understand correctly their opinion they limit the term to a proceeding authorized by a law enacted by the State where the recognizance was executed. I am of opinion that the tem will also embrace a proceeding authorized by any law of the United States. A proceeding sanctioned by such law, which renders the performance of the condition of the recognizance impossible, ought, in my judgment, upon plain principles of justice and according to the authorities, to release the sureties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Larry R. Lund