Woollomes v. Heinze’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.2d 577 · 1952
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Darr v. Burford · Mattox v. United States · Helvering v. Gowran · McNally v. Hill
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of'a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either in absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. “An applicant shall'not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question ■ presented.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pappas v. Buchkoe““Deliberate suppression of evidence may well constitute proper ground for release where there has been connivance or actual fraud by the prosecution preventing use of evidence by the accused at his trial.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.