Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 324 S.W.2d 133 - State v. Thompson

State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
October 1989
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 1989 · most notably McCrary v. State (1975), 287 F. Supp. 166 - Goodwin v. Swenson (1968)

5 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

4101959196019701980decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Hayman · Anderson v. McKay · Wells v. United States · Taylor v. United States · Caudle v. United States

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

  1. ““A motion to vacate under Rule 27.26 is not cumulative but is an alternative remedy intended to provide a more convenient and expeditious means than ha-beas corpus to determine the legality of an imprisonment. State v. Cemy, 365 Mo. 732 , 286 S.W.2d 804 , 806 (1956). A contrary view would not be in keeping with the intent expressed in § 532.040 of the Habeas Corpus Act which is: ‘Whenever an application under this chapter for a writ of habeas corpus shall be refused, it shall not be lawful for any inferior court or officer to entertain any application for the relief sought from, and refused by, a superior court or officer.’ We find that all of the issues Thompson now seeks to have determined have been adjudicated adversely to him by the supreme court in the prior habeas corpus proceeding on May 21, 1951, and he is thereby precluded from litigating the questions further by means of a motion to vacate and set aside under Rule 27.26 filed in the trial court.” (Citing authorities.) The trial court properly denied Hicks relief on ground (a).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.