Cornelius Walker, Jr. v. Vernon L. Peppersack, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * At the time of that appeal [Walker’s direct appeal] . it seemed dear also that, because of the decision in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949), the federal law did not prohibit the state’s use of such evidence. . “ * * * The Wolf doctrine remained unchanged until the decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (June 19, 1961), “ * * * Under the Maryland rule of law, no search warrant was required but this rule was in direct and violent conflict with the later decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (June 19, 1961). “ * * * At the time of Walker’s trial and first appeal, it is clear that he did not intentionally abandon a Icnoivn right since there was then no such right for him to abandon. That was before the Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp.” (Second emphasis the courts; the first and third, mine; 316 F.2d 119 , at pages 125, 127, 127-128).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rice v. Warden

2. ““What is before me, therefore, on habeas corpus, is a claim of an important constitutional right which was raised in the State Courts as soon as it was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States asad this at a time when the case still was within the jurisdiction of the trial court on the motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment and in the petition to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence seized thereunder. It was pressed in the trial court and on appeal. Having been rejected there in direct attack it is properly raised here on habeas corpus. “The accident of time made it possible for the petitioner to press his newly recognized constitutional rights at every level of the State court system. In these circumstances I hold that he stands within the protection of the Mapp case, however narrow its reach may ultimately be defined.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peters v. Dillon

3. ““Scant as these cases may seem as authority for our position, there is no Supreme Court precedent which compels a holding that a Supreme Court decision overruling a previous interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply retroactively. We hold that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 226 F. Supp. 983 - Bates v. Dickson