Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 342 U.S. 205 - United States v. Hayman

United States v. Hayman’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

2,825
cited by 2,825 later decisions
65
cited 65 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

1,809 federal appellate · 159 district · 226 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,825 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Fay v. Noia (1963), United States v. Frady (1982)

1,809 federal appellate · 159 district · 226 state decisions — followed in 29 states

806019521960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedHayman v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Mooney v. Holohan

Cited together with Price v. Johnston · United State v. Morgan · Heflin v. United States · Hill v. United States · Sanders v. United States

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 2,825 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.””
    58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sole purpose was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum.”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
    13 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.