Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 U.S. 174 - Sunal v. Large

Sunal v. Large’s Empirical Analysis

332 U.S. 174 · 1947

Citation profile

956
cited by 956 later decisions
73
cited 73 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

558 federal appellate · 46 district · 95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 956 later decisions (73 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993), Fay v. Noia (1963)

558 federal appellate · 46 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 28 states

2660194719501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedSunal v. Large (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Yakus 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 956 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““An endeavor is made to magnify the error in these trials to constitutional proportions by asserting that the refusal of the proffered evidence robbed the trial of vitality by depriving defendants of their only real defense. But as much might be said of many rulings during a criminal trial. Defendants received throughout an opportunity to be heard and en- joyed all procedural guaranties granted by the Constitution. Error in ruling on the question of law did not infect the trial with lack of procedural due process. As stated by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 , 494, [ 55 S.Ct. 818 , 79 L.Ed. 1566 ], ‘When a hearing is allowed but there is error in conducting it or in limiting its scope, the remedy is by appeal. When an opportunity to be heard is denied altogether, the ensuing mandate of the court is void, and the prisoner confined thereunder may have recourse to habeas corpus to put an end to the restraint.’ ””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * the rule which requires resort to appellate procedure for the correction of errors ‘is not one defining power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise of power.’ ””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “So far as convictions obtained in the federal courts are concerned, the general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed to do service for an appeal.”
    6 later decisions 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.