Langley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 219 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 238 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Ballard v. State (1974), Woods v. State (1998)
10 federal appellate · 219 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia
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 238 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Due to the nature of and the manner in which the issues are here raised for our consideration in these two appeals we feel compelled to briefly outline the office or function our post conviction remedy rules were designed to play in Indiana's scheme of criminal appellate practice. As will be seen, serious question may be raised as to the right of a criminal defendant to indefinitely prolong litigation on his case. "In the name of justice and fair play this court, through its promulgation of our post conviction remedy rules and by case decision, has sought to insure that each defendant will have an avenue available by which he may challenge on appeal the correctness of his conviction. It was not our intent, however, to provide a means whereby one convicted could repeatedly re-litigate claims of improper conviction, or could unqualifiedly, upon a legitimate waiver of the right to appeal either expressly made or to be inferred through application of appropriate legal principles, raise an untimely challenge directed at some aspect of the proceedings against him. In attempting then to correlate the role of the post conviction remedy rules with those afforded by direct appeal and to define their appropriate use in a challenge directed at a criminal proceeding, it would seem obvious that this court has a vested interest in guarding against a perversion of the rules through improper invocation of their protections or a prostitution of the spirit of criminal justice through sanctione”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. State · Maxey v. State“(W)e do not purport to articulate a list of the bases for such a collateral attack, it is clear that one such persuasive circumstance, if adequately proved, would be the ineffective assistance of counsel.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boykins v. State · Gregory v. State“'unreservedly hold the door open for appellate review under the post-conviection remedy rules, regardless of the circumstances which preceded, [and] perforce characterize post conviction relief as some sort of 'super appeal' contrary to its intended function.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Owens v. State · Grey v. State
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.