Darr v. Burford’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 200 · 1950
Citation profile
1,426 federal appellate · 231 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,646 later decisions (85 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Wainwright v. Sykes (1977)
1,426 federal appellate · 231 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 21 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
reviewedDarr v. Burford (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Mooney v. Holohan · Price v. Johnston
Cited together with Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Fay v. Noia · Brown v. Allen · Rose v. Lundy · Frisbie v. Collins
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 2,646 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter.”
47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Carrier · In re Barry““An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.””
35 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Darcy v. Heinze · Cooper v. Cranor“* * * A conviction after public trial in a state court by verdict or plea of guilty places the burden on the accused to allege and prove primary facts, not inferences, that show, notwithstanding the strong presumption of constitutional regularity in state judicial proceedings, that in his prosecution the state so departed from constitutional requirements as to justify a federal court's intervention to protect the rights of the accused.”
7 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.