Schechtman v. Foster’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 339 · 1949
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2012 · most notably Rose v. Lundy (1982), Darr v. Burford (1950)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · McKane v. Durston · District of Columbia v. Clawans · House v. Mayo · Carter v. People of State of Illinois
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.' " Ibid. (quoting Hebert v. Louisiana , 272 U.S. 312 , 316, 47 S.Ct. 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. 270). In Schechtman v. Foster , 172 F.2d 339, 341 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 924, 70 S.Ct. 613, 94 L.Ed. 1346, Judge Learned Hand wrote for the court, in affirming a denial of a habeas corpus petition alleging intentional use of perjured testimony, that "[i]f the [state] judge who denied that [claim] did in fact consider the evidence as a whole, and if he decided that it was not, even prima facie, sufficient to make out a case of deliberate presentation by the prosecution of perjured testimony, [petitioner] was accorded the full measure of his constitutional rights. . . . [T]he District Court could not properly have issued the writ, no matter how erroneous the judge had thought the state judge's conclusion that the evidence did not make out a prima facie case of the deliberate use of perjured testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cobb v. Thaler · Rose v. Lundy“. . . due process of law does not mean infallible process of law.”
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.