green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
15.3 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case ·
"accused shall enjoy the right 'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' "
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
"[T]he power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law."
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903
1964
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lee v. Lampert
he power to award the writ by any of the courts of the united states, must be given by written law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Max-George v. Ashcroft
he power to award the writ by any of the courts of the united states, must be given by written law.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
ca9 1998
acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Magana-Pizano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity_
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Kelly J. Jackson
(2×)
accused shall enjoy the right 'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd.
(2×)
"This great principle, stare decisis, so fundamental in our law, and so congenial to liberty, is peculiarly important in our popular governments, where the influence of the passions is strong, the struggles for power are violent, the fluctuations of party are frequent, and the desire of suppressing opposition, or of gratifying revenge under the forms of law and by the agency of the courts, is constant and active." Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75, 89 , 2 L.Ed. 554, 559 (1807).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Preciose
See Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88 , 43 S.Ct. 265, 265-66 , 67 L.Ed. 543, 544 (1923) (“What we have to deal with is not the petitioners’ innocence or guilt, but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved”); Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 101 , 2 L.Ed. 554, 563 (1807).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tucker v. Tri-State Lawn & Garden, Inc.
Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75 , 89 2 L.Ed. 554, 559 (1807).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca5 1977
Congress authorized federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81 -82, and Mr. Justice Marshall, in Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 98-99 , 2 L.Ed. 554, 562 (1807), citing 3 W.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ballard v. Spradley
Congress authorized federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81 -82, and Mr. Justice Marshall, in Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 98-99 , 2 L.Ed. 554, 562 (1807), citing 3 W.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shell Oil Co. v. Supervisor of Assessments
In reference to judicial tribunals, an appellate jurisdiction, therefore, necessarily implies, that the subject matter has been already instituted in, and acted upon, by some other court, whose judgment or proceedings are to be revised. . . .To operate at all, then, under the constitution of the United States, it is not sufficient, that there has been a decision by some officer, or department of the United States; it must be by one clothed with judicial authority, and acting in a judicial capacity. ” (Emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted.) See also Ex Parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 101 , 2 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ex parte Bollman , 4 Cranch 75 , 125, 8 U.S. 75 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (taking testimony in conjunction with an "inquiry" to determine whether "the accused shall be discharged or held to trial").
discussed
Cited "see"
Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc.
(2×)
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 136 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.J.) (“[A]s the crime [of treason] with which the prisoners stand charged has not been committed, the court can only direct them to be discharged.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregory Bohus v. Restaurant.Com Inc
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 101 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.J.) (defining appellate jurisdiction as “the revision of a decision of an inferior court”); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.) (“It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted....”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli
(2×)
See Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 95 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (describing the writ of habeas corpus as the “[Gjreat [W]rit.”) Alexander Hamilton lauded “the establishment of the writ of habeas corpus” along with “the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY” as the Constitution’s “greate[st] securities to liberty and republicanism.” The Federalist No. 84 (Alexander Hamilton) (emphasis in original); see also, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. at 2246 (“That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident fro…
cited
Cited "see"
Andrew Cortez Crater v. George M. Galaza
See Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S.(4 Cranch) 75, 94 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807).
cited
Cited "see"
Barnhart v. Kyler
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 95 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.J.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maldonado v. Fasano
See Felker, 518 U.S. at 664 , 116 S.Ct. at 2340 (quoting Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 93-94 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807)) (“the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.”); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 , 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868) (recognizing congressional power to curtain the Supreme Court’s authority to hear writs of habeas corpus). 12 The Supreme Court has never recognized any constitutional restriction on Congressional authority to curtail the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts.
discussed
Cited "see"
Olvera v. Reno
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, J.) (stating that the power to award the writ of habeas must be given by written law, and that the Suspension Clause became effectual only after Congress passed section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ancestor of § 2241). 8 .
cited
Cited "see"
Sabino v. Reno
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 100 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807).
cited
Cited "see"
In re the Fee Agreement of Cox
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 93-94, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807); ITT Community Dev.
cited
Cited "see"
John Wesley Stewart v. Randy Bailey Larry Huffman Cindy S. Staton Other John Does Jerry P. Mitchell
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 97-99 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.J.).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Francis Larkin and Francis Bolduc
Once a valid subpoena has been issued, the government may apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to gain custody over a state prisoner and secure his presence before the grand jury. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(5); United States v. Lach, 874 F.2d 1543, 1548 (11th Cir.1989); Carmona v. Warden, 549 F.Supp. 621, 622 (S.D.N.Y.1982); see generally Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 74 , 97-98, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807); In re Liberatore, 574 F.2d 78, 89 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Larkin
Once a valid subpoena has been issued, the government may apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to gain custody over a state prisoner and secure his presence before the grand jury. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(5); United States v. Lach, 874 F.2d 1543, 1548 (11th Cir.1989); Carmona v. Warden; 549 F.Supp. 621, 622 (S.D.N.Y.1982); see generally Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 74 , 97-98, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807); In re Liberatore, 574 F.2d 78, 89 (2d Cir.1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 96-97 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency
(2×)
See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 100 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807). .
cited
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Rowe v. Ferguson
Stephen, supra, at 243; see Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 97-101 , 2 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Clifford Bailey, United States of America v. Ronald Clifton Cooley, United States of America v. Ralph Walker
(2×)
See generally Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 97 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salvatore Finazzo, Dominic J. Licavoli
(2×)
See the Bator, Mishkin, Shapiro, Wechsler edition of Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1262-65 (1973) 25 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 93 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) 26 See note 22, Supra, and discussion of United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 , 98 S.Ct. 364 , 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977), at p. 848, Infra; see also Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 603-607, 616-618 , 66 S.Ct. 1256 , 90 L.Ed. 1453 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); United States v. One Red Motor Truck, 6 F.2d 412 (D.R.I.1925); Fraenkel, Concerning Searches and Seizures, 34 Harv.L.Rev. 361, 380 (1920)…
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. State
(2×)
In England where it originated and in the United States, this high purpose has made the writ both the symbol and the guardian of individual liberty. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries 131-138; see Ex parte Bollman, [ 8 U.S. 75 ] 4 Cranch 75 , 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807); Ex parte Lange, [ 85 U.S. 163 ] 18 Wall. 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 , 43 S.Ct. 265 , 67 L.Ed. 543 (1923); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963)." [7] …
cited
Cited "see"
In re Van Collins
See Ex parte Bollman (Ex parte Swartwout), 1807, 4 Crunch 75, 97-98, 2 L.Ed. 554 ; Price v. Johnston, 1948, 334 U.S. 266, 281 , 68 S.Ct. 1049 , 92 L.Ed. 1356 .
cited
Cited "see"
In re Berryman
See Ex parte Bollman (Ex parte Swartwout), 8 U.S. 75, 98 , 2 L.Ed. 554, 562 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Emanuel Josephson
See Ex parte Bollman, 1807, 4 Cranch 75, 100 , 2 L.Ed. 554 ; United States v. Peters, 1809, 5 Cranch 115 , 3 L.Ed. 53 ; Parker v. Judges of Circuit Court of Maryland, 1827, 12 Wheat. 561 , 6 L.Ed. 729 ; Ex parte Crane, 1831, 5 Pet. 190 , 8 L.Ed. 92 ; Ex parte Bradley, 1868, 7 Wall. 364 , 19 L.Ed. 214 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Bruguier
We are not now, nor have we ever been, “a panel of grammarians.” Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 150 , 80 S.Ct. 630 , 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960); see also, e.g., Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 95, 2 L.Ed. 554 (1807) (Marshall, C.J.) (“[SJtrict grammatical construction .... is not entirely without its influence; but the sound construction which the court thinks it safer to adopt, is, that the true sense of the words is to be determined by the nature of the provision, and by the context.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Burgman
Cas. page 376 , No. 16,621; United States v. Mitchell, 1795, 26 Fed.Cas. page 1277, No. 15,788. [2] United States v. Fries, 1799, 9 Fed.Cas. page 826, No. 5126. [3] United States v. Burr, 1807, 25 Fed.Cas. page 55, No. 14,693; see also Ex parte Bollman and Ex parte Swartwout, 1807, 4 Cranch 75, 126 , 2 L.Ed. 554 . [4] United States v. Hoxie, 1808, 26 Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Chapman
See, also, In re Bollman, 8 U. S. (4 Cranch.) 75, 135, 2 L.
PENDLETON AND WEBB
v.
WAMBERSIE ET AL.
v.
WAMBERSIE ET AL.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 27, 1807.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit in equity, in which Pendleton and Webb were complainants, against Emanuel Wambersie, James Seagrove, and the representative of James Armstrong, Jacob Weed, and Henry Osborne, were defendants.
The bill stated that Henry Osborne, Jacob Weed, James Armstrong, James Seagrove, and the complainant John Webb, on the 22d of December, 1786, entered into an agreement with each other, under seal, to procure lands on their joint account in the state of Georgia, to an amount not exceeding 200,000 acres, at[*74] their joint expense, and for their joint benefit. That grants were obtained for about 165,000 acres. That Webb by deed transferred all his right to the lands and contract to John M`Queen, in consideration of 400l. sterling, to be paid in four equal annual instalments. That M`Queen, not having paid Webb, assigned his right to Pendleton, the complainant, who undertook to indemnify M`Queen against Webb's demand. That Webb has never received the money due from M`Queen. That Wambersie, as agent for the company, had sold 60,000 acres of the land in Holland, at one dollar and fifty-six cents per acre, had received in cash 51,000 dollars, and had made himself liable for the balance. That he has refused to pay to the complainant, Pendleton, the one-fifth of the purchase money. That the other defendants refuse to divide the residue of the lands, and to account for the profits, &c. That the lands are liable, in the hands of the purchasers, for the balance of the purchase money, both to the complainant Webb, for the purchase money due to him, and to the complainant Pendleton for his one-fifth of the amount of the sales. The bill seeks a discovery of the amount of lands granted to the company, of the amount sold, &c. and prays that the defendants may account, and that the lands may be charged with the balance of the purchase money, &c.
The defendants demurred for want of equity in the bill, and the court below sustained the demurrer, and decreed that the bill be dismissed, with costs.
But this court, without argument, overruled the demurrer, reversed the decree, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.