House v. Mayo’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 42 · 1945
Citation profile
293 federal appellate · 23 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 608 later decisions (79 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Cronic (1984), Brown v. Allen (1953)
293 federal appellate · 23 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 377
Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Betts v. Brady · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Waley v. Johnston · Holiday v. Johnston
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 608 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“imports no expression of opinion upon the merits”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““From a final decision by a .court of the United States in a proceeding in habeas corpus where the detention complained of is by virtue of process issued out of a State court no appeal to the circuit court of appeals shall be allowed unless .'the United States court by which the final decision was rendered or a judge of the circuit court of appeals shall be of opinion that there exists probable cause for an appeal, in which event, on allowing the same, the said court or judge shall certify that there is probable cause for such allowance. (Mar. 10, 1908, c. 76, 35 Stat. 40 ; Feb. 13, 1925, c. 229 §§ 6, 13, 43 Stat. 940 , 942.)” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The district court was of the opinion that ‘petitioner has had a full, complete, and competent consideration and decision in the Supreme Court of Florida of all the various matters here sought again to be presented.’ The district court had reference to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court referred to by petitioner in his papers filed with the district court. They were: House v. State 127 Fla. 145 , 172 So. 734 , a writ of error from petitioner’s conviction; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 , an application for leave to file a coram nobis proceeding; and the denial by the Florida Supreme Court without opinion of three petitions for habeas corpus filed by petitioner. By each form of proceeding petitioner attempted to raise the questions he now raises in the present petition; but in each instance, so far as appears, the Florida Supreme Court, without considering the merits of petitioner’s contentions and without affording a hearing on the merits, denied relief to petitioner, on the ground that the particular remedy sought was not the appropriate one under Florida law to raise those contentions. See House v. State 127 Fla. 145 , 148,”
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.