Daniels v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 763 · 1951
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1988
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 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
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Darr v. Burford · Frank v. Mangum · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Moore v. Dempsey
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no attempt on the part of the State of North Carolina in the pending appeal to show that there was not a gross violation of the constitutional rights of the prisoners in the trial court. The state’s argument proceeds upon the ground that the appellants lost any right to a review of the action of the trial court of Pitt County when their attorneys failed to conform meticulously to the local procedural requirements.” Daniels v. Allen, 192 F.2d at 771 , Soper, Circuit Judge, dissenting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cutbirth v. State“Nothing is said in either of these cases [referring to Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 , 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed. 543 and Ex parte Davis, 318 U.S. 412 , 63 S.Ct. 679, 87 L.Ed. 868], or elsewhere, to suggest that a state remedy is to be deemed unavailable or inadequate, so as to authorize resort to the federal courts, merely because applicant has failed to comply with the reasonable rules of the state court in applying for the remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Galloway v. Dowd““To justify such action [the issuance of the writ], there must have been such a gross violation of constitutional rights as to deny the accused the substance of a fair trial in a situation where he was not in position to protect himself”;”
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.