Prater v. Hand’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The established rule of this jurisdiction is that the unsupported and uncorroborated statements of the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding do not sustain the burden of proof or justify the granting of a writ where— as here—the judgment rendered is regular on its face and entitled to a presumption of regularity and validity and all of our decisions so hold. See, e. g., Thomas v. Hand, 184 Kan. 485, 486 , 337 P. 2d 651 ; Stebens v. Hand, 182 Kan. 304, 309 , 320 P. 2d 790 ; Ferguson v. Hoffman, 180 Kan. 139, 141 , 299 P. 2d 596 ; Cunningham v. Hoffman, 179 Kan. 609, 611 , 296 P. 2d 1081 ; Hartman v. Edmondson, 178 Kan. 164, 166 , 283 P. 2d 397 ; Dionne v. Hudspeth, 166 Kan. 72, 73 , 199 P. 2d 176 ; Kendall v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 307, 308 , 176 P. 2d 254 .” (1. c. 407.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Huston v. State