Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 P3D 372 - Flanigan v. State

Flanigan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2001
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · United States v. Hayman

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

  1. “No court or judge, on the return of a writ of habeas corpus, may inquire into the legality or justice of any order, judgment, or [court] process [produced as justification for the petitioner's imprisonment or detention].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “A person properly imprisoned ... by virtue of a legal judgment [issued by] a competent tribunal [having] civil or criminal jurisdiction ... shall not be allowed to prosecute the writ.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.