Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 Utah 2d 284 - Bryant v. Turner

19 Utah 2d 284 - Bryant v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

2 district · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 21 Utah 2d 96 - Brown v. Turner (1968), Codianna v. Morris (1983)

2 district · 83 state decisions

3401967197019801990200020102020decided

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 Price v. Johnston · Frank v. Mangum · Leyra v. Denno · 17 Utah 2d 273 - Gallegos v. Turner

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

  1. “It is true that we have repeatedly declared that any claims of error or impropriety should be asserted in the regular procedure provided for on appeals and that, if that is not done, a writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a belated appeal. Nevertheless, howsoever desirable it may be to adhere to the rules, the law should not be so blind and unreasoning that where an injustice has resulted the victim should be without remedy. For that reason, as indicated in the cited eases, the writ should be available in rare cases, where it appears that there is a strong likelihood that there has been such unfairness, or failure to accord due process of law, that it would be wholly unconscionable not to reexamine the conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The writ is, as our rules describe it, an extraordinary writ, to be used to protect one who is restrained of his liberty where there exists no jurisdiction or authority, or where the requirements of the law have been so ignored or.distorted that the party is substantially and effectively denied what is included in the term due process of law, or where some other such circumstance exists that it would be wholly unconscionable not to re-examine the conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The writ is, as our rules describe it, an extraordinary writ, to be used to protect one who is restrained of his liberty where there exists no jurisdiction or authority, or where the requirements of law have been so ignored or distorted that the party is substantially and effectively denied what is included in the term due process of law, or where some other such circumstance exists that it would be wholly unconscionable not to re-examine the conviction.”
    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.