Sampsell v. California’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.2d 721 · 1951
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1981 · most notably Chapman v. State of California (1967), Brown v. Allen (1953)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Berger v. United States · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Darr v. Burford
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A conviction after public trial in a state court by verdict or plea of guilty places the burden on the accused to allege and prove primary facts, not inferences, that show, notwithstanding the strong presumption of constitutional regularity in state judicial proceedings, that in his prosecution the state so departed from constitutional requirements as to justify a federal court’s intervention to protect the rights of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The state has full control over the procedure in its courts, both in civil and criminal cases; subject only to the qualifications that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights, or conflict with specific and applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Our function in this type of proceeding is not to correct errors committed in a state trial court . . . Federal Courts must withhold interference with the administration of state criminal justice unless a federal right has been violated.””
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.