Hawk v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

313 federal appellate · 52 district · 214 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 816 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he defendant needs counsel and counsel needs time,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hawk v. Olson · Jones v. Cunningham

2. “Continuance may or may not have been useful to the accused but the importance of the assistance of counsel in a serious criminal charge after arraignment is too large to permit speculation on its effect”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grandsinger v. Bovey · United States of America Ex Rel. John Martinez, Relator-Appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York

3. ““We think the Supreme Court of the United States overlooked the full import of our opinion, for it said: ‘When the corrective process is provided by the state but error, in relation to the federal question of constitutional violation, creeps into the record, we have the responsibility to review the state proceedings.’ (Emphasis supplied.) ‘As the Supreme Court of Nebraska considered the motion for continuance on the merits, no question of state procedure for the reexamination of criminal convictions arises.’ (Emphasis supplied.) The Supreme Court of the'United States thus, as a premise for its jurisdiction to review and for its decision, assumed a proposition of state law contrary to our holding in the case. ***** “A ‘question of state procedure for the reexamination of criminal convictions’ did arise and was determined by us. That question remains in this case and is here now. A habeas corpus proceeding is not a ‘corrective judicial process’ in which the questions which petitioner seeks to present may be determined in the courts of this state. Although it holds that habeas corpus is a process available in the federal courts to redress the violation of the federal constitutional right, the Supreme Court of the United States does not discuss nor pass upon the nature of the remedy available in the courts of Nebraska. “It is not for us to say what constitutes a violation of the due process of law clauses of the Federal Constitution when the Supreme Court of the United States has”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grandsinger v. Bovey