Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 F.2d 664 - Darcy v. Heinze

Darcy v. Heinze’s Empirical Analysis

194 F.2d 664 · 1952

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
July 1987
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Darr v. Burford · White v. Ragen · Jennings v. State of Illinois La Frana · Dixon v. Duffy · Cooper v. Cranor

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

  1. ““Upon consideration of the above entitled petition, it is my view that it does not comply with Title 28 U.S. C., Section 2254, in that it does not properly set forth that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of the State of New Hampshire, or that there is an absence of available corrective process, or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect his rights. “It is accordingly ordered that the' petitioner be and hereby is granted leave to file, within a period of thirty days after the date of this order, a supplemental petition in which he shall set forth the facts relative to his detention, the precise remedies which he claims he has exhausted, the issues presented in such proceedings, and whether he has applied for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, or that there are exceptional circumstances which would warrant the intervention of this court. “If the petitioner fails or neglects to file such supplemental petition in accordance with the authority granted herein, the application for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.””
    2 later decisions 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.