Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 U.S. 672 - Wade v. Mayo

Wade v. Mayo’s Empirical Analysis

334 U.S. 672 · 1948

Citation profile

659
cited by 659 later decisions
41
cited 41 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

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

2390194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

  1. “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
  2. “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
  3. ““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.