Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 F.2d 108 - Lunce v. Overlade

Lunce v. Overlade’s Empirical Analysis

244 F.2d 108 · 1957

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
10
states following
December 1983
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 1983 · most notably 50 Cal. 2d 383 - People v. Wein (1958), Brubaker v. Dickson (1962)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

2201957196019701980decided

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 Brown v. Allen · Laskey Bros. of West Virginia, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Lyles & Lang Construction Co. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Adams v. Maryland · United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy

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

  1. “We believe that petitioners' allegations set forth a prima facie violation of federal constitutional rights, and since there has been no determination, either by a review of the trial record or by a hearing of evidence, as to whether petitioners, in fact, are imprisoned in violation of their constitutional rights * * the cause [is] remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. 9 * * * * * * 10 "* * * In the instant case the federal judge may look to the state proceeding for such light as it may shed on the historical facts, but it is for the federal judge to assess on the basis of such facts the fundamental fairness of petitioners' conviction with such counsel as they had. If petitioners establish by adequate and competent proof the pertinent allegations contained in their petition for habeas corpus we think they will have shown that their conviction was so lacking in fundamental fairness that it cannot be sustained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We believe that petitioners' allegations set forth a prima facie violation of federal constitutional rights, and since there has been no determination, either by a review of the trial record or by a hearing of evidence, as to whether petitioners, in fact, are imprisoned in violation of their constitutional rights * * the cause [is] remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. 9 * * * * * * 10”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “preclude review by way of federal habeas corpus of important federal questions raised by persons held in state custody.”
    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.