21 Utah 2d 96 - Brown v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Allen v. Friel (2008), Andrews v. Deland (1991)
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 89 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 Price v. Johnston · 19 Utah 2d 284 - Bryant v. Turner · 18 Utah 2d 215 - State v. Knepper · 20 Utah 2d 126 - Sinclair v. Turner · 13 Utah 2d 63 - State v. Banford
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Habeas corpus] is an extraordinary remedy which is properly invocable only when the court had no jurisdiction over the person or the offense, or where the requirements of law have been so disregarded that the party is substantially and effectively denied due process of law, or where some such fact is shown that it would be unconscionable not to re-examine the conviction. If the contention of error is something which is known or should be known to the party at the time the judgment was entered, it must be reviewed in the manner and within the time permitted by regular prescribed procedure, or the judgment becomes final and is not subject to further attack, except in some such unusual circumstance as we have mentioned above. Were it otherwise, the regular rules of procedure governing appeals and the limitations of time specified therein would be rendered impotent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. West · Codianna v. Morris“where the requirements of law have been so disregarded that the party is substantially and effectively denied due process of law, or where some such fact is shown that it would be unconscionable not to re-examine the conviction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Currier v. Holden · Allen v. Friel“the observance of the rights of the individual in order to protect the innocent,... [and] the necessity of protecting rights of the public to be kept safe from crime by encouraging effective law enforcement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Currier v. Holden
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.