Pike v. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis
323 F.2d 856 · 1963
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Wright v. Dickson (1964), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Ex Rel. George W. Craig v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1965)
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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 Conley v. Gibson · Fay v. Noia · Irvin v. Dowd · Brown v. Allen · Douglas v. People of State of California
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The clear impropriety of relying upon a State Supreme Court’s decision as a conclusive determination of questions of this kind is too well settled to require argument .... The reason why a State court’s adjudication of facts relating to a claim of denial of constitutional right cannot be final or binding upon a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding was noted in Brown v. Allen 344 U.S. [443], at p. 500, 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), as follows: ‘But the prior State determination of a claim under the United States Constitution cannot foreclose consideration here of such a claim, else the State court would have the final say which the Congress, by the Act of 1867, provided it should not have. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lindsey v. Craven“In view of these circumstances [petitioner's seventh grade education] it is appropriate that the petition be read in the manner suggested by Chief Judge Sobeloff in United States v. Glass, 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 200 , 202, as follows: `Where the layman's papers clearly show what he is driving at, it is usually in the interest of justice and may in the long run save time to temper the reading of the papers with a measure of tolerance.' This court has applied the same rule of construction of a layman's pleadings in Thomas v. Teets, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 236 , 238. 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pembrook v. Wilson““The conduct of the prosecutor at the trial * * * could possibly, amount to a denial of due process.””
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.