Wright v. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

86 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On a hearing he [the defendant] would have the burden of sustaining his allegations by a preponderance of evidence. It is true that they are denied in the affidavits filed with the return to the rule, but the denials only serve to make the issues which must be resolved by evidence taken in the usual way. They can have no other office. The witnesses who made them must be subjected to examination ore tenus or by deposition as are all other witnesses. Not by the pleadings and the affidavits, but by the whole of the testimony, must it be determined whether the petitioner has carried his burden of proof and shown his right to a discharge. The Government's contention that his allegations are improbable and unbelievable cannot serve to deny him an opportunity to support them by evidence. On this record it is his right to be heard.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 272 Cal. App. 2d 886 - In Re Krieger · United States v. Hoffa

2. “[i]f the show cause proceeding discloses the existence of substantial issues of fact, which if resolved in accordance with the petitioner's contentions would entitle him to relief, [must] the district court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine those issues.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowen v. Thurman · United States v. Irwin

3. “Recitals of fact in state court records, including opinions, may be relied upon in a show cause proceeding if the accuracy of the recitals is not disputed; and if a decision follows from these uncontested facts as a matter of law, no evidentiary hearing is required. However, if a petitioner, or the state, contests the facts recited in the records, they `must be given the opportunity to present other testimonial and documentary evidence relevant to the disputed issues.' Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 322, 83 S. Ct. 745, 762 [9 L.Ed.2d 770] (1963). * * * [additional cases cited in a footnote].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haacks v. Wainwright