State v. Shores’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2019
10 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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles · Lyles & Lang Construction Co. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Scott v. Hudspeth · Stebens v. Hand
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . We do not understand why the appellant would need a transcript of the record of the trial to enable him to file a proceeding in habeas corpus, and, we might add, the journal entry of judgment of appellant’s conviction appears regular in every respect and shows that appellant was represented by competent counsel at every stage of the trial and up to and including the motion for new trial and the pronouncement of the sentence. It cannot be thought that G. S. 1959 Supp., 62-1304, provides for a free transcript for the purpose of filing a habeas corpus proceeding. The statute is limited to an appeal. . . . “We are quite familiar with the cases of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 , 100 L. Ed. 891 , 76 S. Ct. 585 ; and Eskridge v. Washington Prison Bd., 357 U. S. 214 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 1269 , 78 S. Ct. 1061 . Those cases do not require that a person apparently legally confined in a state penitentiary according to law, be given a free transcript to enable him to bring a habeas corpus proceeding to ‘review’ his conviction.” (l. c. 494.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Chance““G. S. 1961 Supp., 62-1304, is construed, and it is held: The district court is not required to order the county to furnish an indigent defendant a transcript of proceedings of his trial and conviction of felony to enable him to file a habeas corpus proceeding to review his conviction. “Where a defendant’s appeal from his conviction of felony is not timely perfected pursuant to G. S. 1949, 62-1724, the district court is not required to order a transcript of the trial court’s proceedings made at the expense of the county.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Crouse“That habeas corpus is not a substitute * for an appeal is elementary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.