341 F. Supp. 296 - Mozingo v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Roberts v. Florida · Lipsett Steel Products, Inc. v. Mosley · West Virginia ex rel. Sublett v. Adams · 64 Cal. 2d 412 - In Re Sandel · In Re Schoengarth
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. The petitioner is being held in custody by the respondent and the State of California in violation of the Constitution of the United States. “2. He is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus from this court, and the writ will issue unless the respondent and the State of California shall, within 60 days from the date this judgment becomes final, institute new trial proceedings against the petitioner. “3. This court retains full jurisdiction of the case to modify, amend, and enforce the judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sailer v. Gunn“including the right of the petitioner to the assistance of counsel, to confront adverse witnesses and to present witnesses on his own behalf.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mozingo v. Craven
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.