190 F. Supp. 608 - Owsley v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 1992
7 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brown v. Allen · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · United States Smith v. Baldi · V. P. Serodino, Inc. v. United States · Ciucci v. 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Admittedly, the federal court may, in its discretion, entertain and consider a review of the issue of insanity at the time of trial, even where the state court has previously determined the same issue after hearing. It is not, however, required to do so. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 458 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Cox“Any error of the state court in evaluating the issue of mental competency would not go to jurisdiction ;■ it is only the denial of the opportunity to tender the issue of insanity which affords the right to present the issue of insanity in habeas corpus proceedings.”
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.