Wade v. Mayo’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 672 · 1948
Citation profile
288 federal appellate · 51 district · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 659 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Carnley v. Cochran (1962), Castaneda v. Partida (1977)
288 federal appellate · 51 district · 93 state decisions — followed in 19 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
reviewedMayo v. Wade (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Mooney v. Holohan · Price v. Johnston · Betts v. Brady
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 659 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indeed, any other rule would visit upon the federal courts an impossible burden, forcing them to supervise the countless state criminal proceedings in which deprivations of federal constitutional rights are alleged.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are some individuals who, by reason of age, ignorance or mental capacity, are incapable of representing themselves adequately in a prosecution of a relatively simple nature. This incapacity is purely personal and can be determined only by an examination and observation of the individual. Where such incapacity is present, the refusal to appoint counsel is a denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Considerations of prompt and orderly procedure in the federal courts will often dictate that direct review be sought first in this Court. And where a prisoner has neglected to seek that review, such failure may be a relevant consideration for a district court in determining whether to entertain a subsequent habeas corpus petition.” Id. 339 U.S. at 209-210 , 70 S.Ct. at 593 , 94 L.Ed. 761 .”
3 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.