MacKenna v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis
263 F.2d 35 · 1959
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1980 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), MacKenna v. Ellis (1960)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · In re Oliver
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. [t]he defendant, being sui juris and mentally competent, had a right to rely on his own skill and ability to conduct his defense in person without the assistance of counsel; and the court was not justified in imposing assigned counsel on the defendant against his will. Id. at 41 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, or of any State, if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition presents no new ground not theretofore presented and determined, and the judge or court is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lee v. Alabama“Under the facts of this case, to send it back to the district judge to try the issues presented is, I think, a complete rejection of the basic principle that a state, in matters in its own sphere, is sovereign, and that it is not subject to the supervision and control of federal courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacKenna v. Ellis
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.