Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 F.2d 727 - Chavez v. Dickson

Chavez v. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis

280 F.2d 727 · 1960

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 1992
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1992 · most notably Townsend v. Sain (1963), United States of America Ex Rel. John McGrath v. J. E. Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York (1963)

70 federal appellate · 8 district ·

6401960197019801990decided

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 Rochin v. People of California · Brown v. Allen · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Palko v. State of Connecticut

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

  1. “in such a manner as amounts to a disregard of that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice that due process is offended.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[s]tate remedies will not be deemed to have been exhausted within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 if the failure to obtain a final state adjudication was due to inexcusable nonconformity with state procedural requisites.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is difficult to perceive how this court can consider whether the state construction of the statute is arbitrary and unreasonable without in effect reviewing the correctness of the state court’s interpretation of section 189. This, as noted in footnote 3, is not our function.” ( 280 F.2d 731 ).”
    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.