Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 VA 675 - Darnell v. Peyton

Darnell v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Murray v. Giarratano (1989), Arey v. Peyton (1968)

8 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

140196819701980199020002010decided

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 United States of America Ex Rel. Jacob Wissenfeld, Relator-Appellant v. Walter H. Wilkins, Warden, Attica State Prison, Attica, New York · Dillon v. United States · LaClair v. United States · Edward Barker v. The State of Ohio · Smyth v. Godwin

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

  1. “Any person, who has been a resident of this State for a continuous period of six months, who on account of his poverty is unable to pay fees or costs may be allowed by a court to sue or defend a suit therein, without paying fees or costs; whereupon he shall have, from any counsel whom the court may assign him, and from all officers, all needful services and process, without any fees to them therefore, except what may be included in the costs recovered from the opposite party.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The rule adopted by the majority of the courts is that while a petitioner is not in every instance entitled to the assistance of counsel in the prosecution of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the nature and the contents of the relief sought and the basis of the error or defect charged may require that such appointment be made. If it appears from a reading of the petition that the points raised are frivolous and plainly do not justify a judicial inquiry, as is frequently the case, the appointment of counsel is not required.”
    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.