Cain v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 337 · 1959
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 1986 · most notably Taylor v. United States (1960), Barry v. Sigler (1967)
41 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Hayman · Costello v. United States · Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District · Massengale v. United States · New York Central Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the general rule is that a hearing is necessary prior to the disposition of all § 2255 motions presenting factual issues, (citing cases), this requirement is subject to the statutory qualification that the files and records of the case may be sufficient alone to dispose of the motion where they ‘conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief’. Thus, the records of the prior proceedings may so completely affirmatively rebut the motion’s contentions as to make a hearing unnecessary. (Citing cases.) In addition, they may have this effect by demonstrating that the petitioner had prior opportunities to urge the claims of his motion and failed to do so, thereby raising a conclusive inference of their invalidity. Kyle v. United States, 2 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 670 , certiorari denied [ 361 U.S. 870 ], 80 S.Ct. 131 , [ 4 L.Ed.2d 109 ]; Juelich v. United States, 6 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 424 , certiorari denied 358 U.S. 847 , 79 S.Ct. 72 , 3 L.Ed.2d 81 ; Donovan v. United States, 10 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 557 ; United States v. Newman, D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94 .” (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * If the second or successive motion sets up new or dissimilar grounds for relief which are within the purview of the grounds enumerated in the third paragraph of § 2255, and the motion and the records and files of the case do not conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court should ordinarily entertain such second or successive motion.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A defendant, having been represented by competent counsel, having been given every opportunity and right afforded by the law and having entered a plea of guilty, may not, without some reasonable basis, come into court years later and repudiate his prior plea. It is not the intent of Section 2255 nor the meaning of United States v. Hayman, supra,.to require a hearing upon the mere assertion that a prior plea was false. To so interpret the statute and the Hayman case is to say that every time a defendant desires to change his mind as to the reason for entering a plea a hearing must be held with the defendant present.””
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.