Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 F.2d 900 - Wooten v. Bomar

Wooten v. Bomar’s Empirical Analysis

267 F.2d 900 · 1959

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 1978
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 1978

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

170195919601970decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Darr v. Burford · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Johnson v. United States · Thomas v. Arizona · Wooten v. State

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

  1. “There seems to be a great misapprehension among prisoners in State penal institutions that a writ of habeas corpus in Federal Courts gives them an opportunity to have a general review of their original trials. This writ, powerful and important as it is, has its limitations. It is available to correct the denial of fundamental constitutional rights, but it may not be used to correct mere irregularities or errors of law. In other words, it may not be used as a substitute for error proceedings. This has been determined many times in this Court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The petitioner exhausted his remedy on appeal in the State courts of Tennessee, but he did not exhaust', the alternative remedy of habeas-corpus in those courts. * * * It is a well established rule of federal practice that such remedy must be exhausted as a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the federal courts.””
    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.