Proctor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
343 F.2d 317 · 1965
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 1969
most recently cited
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Denno · Smith v. Crouse · Goldbaum v. United States · Leonard v. United States · Muschette 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . This claim, it is further alleged was not argued on appeal because it was not supported by then-existing law, and was not argued in the earlier petition for rehearing en banc because counsel was not then aware of the Supreme Court decisions in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 1028 (1964); and Muschette v. United States, 378 U. S. 569 , 84 S. Ct. 1927 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1964). Petitioner’s claim appears to have substantial merit. . . .” (p. 317.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnes v. State“Supplemental Petition for Rehearing en Banc.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Proctor v. Anderson
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.