Perrin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Fischer v. State (2013), McCall v. State (1966)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Sanders v. United States · Coppedge v. United States · State v. Richardson · Call v. State · Edge v. Wainwright
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sentencing court shall not entertain a second or successive motion for relief on behalf of the same prisoner, where (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. State · Thomas v. State““. . . That point was specifically raised in the petitioner’s first motion and was determined on the merits adversely to his contention. No appeal was taken from that judgment and it became final. The rightness or wrongness of the district court’s decision on that point may not now be inquired into. (K. S. A. 60-1507, Rule No. 121 [d], [1] and [2].)” (1. c. 233.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCall v. State · Robinson v. State““. . . The statute (K. S.A. 60-1507) provides that the motion may be determined ‘without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.’ Not every colorable allegation entitles a prisoner in the penitentiary to a trip to the sentencing court. Neither is the district court compelled to accept all allegations in a motion filed for relief under the statute as presumptively valid, nor accept allegations which are patently unbelievable.’ (Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190, 192 .) Flimsy and transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy. . . .” (l. c. 233.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Redd v. State
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.