Lee v. Burford’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 1972
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lee v. State · Ex Parte Lee · 35 Ala. App. 31 - City of Birmingham v. Reed · Rucker v. Ragen · Lee v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, or of any State, if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition presents no new ground not theretofore presented and determined, and the judge or court is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Alabama
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.