People v. Cornish’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1983
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Oyler v. Boles · Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib Houlberg · Jacobus v. . Colgate · People v. Olah
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.
““When the present proceeding was instituted there was no available State remedy to correct a multiple offender sentence predicated upon out-of-state convictions rendered in violation of the constitutional right to counsel (People v. Wilson, 13 N.Y.2d 277 , 246 N.Y.S.2d 608 , 196 N.E.2d 251 ; see, as to right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 ). Relief was obtainable, however, by Federal habeas corpus (United States ex rel. LaNear v. LaVallee, 306 F.2d 417 [2d Cir.]). This was a matter of grave concern to this Court when People v. Wilson was before it, but this Court was bound by the rule in People v. McCullough, 300 N.Y. 107 , [ 246 N.Y.S.2d 609 ,] 89 N.E.2d 335 . As a result it was concluded that, under existing authority, relief in an applicable case could not be afforded either by way of coram nobis, resentence, or habeas corpus ( 18 A.D.2d 424 , 239 N.Y.S. 2d 900 ). When the Wilson case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, resolution of the problem through the decisional law was foreclosed. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dalrymple“[A]ny irregularity or illegality in the [§ 1943 recidivist] sentencing procedure, which now embraces opportunity for such challenge [of a predicate conviction], may be corrected on a motion for resentence * * * [A] defendant who wishes to show good cause for having failed to make a timely challenge on sentence as a multiple offender is entitled to make a motion for resentence. The availability of such a procedure, of course, precludes the use of coram nobis as a remedy, and removes the occasion of state habeas corpus as a mode of relief.”
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.